Can the workers ever be wrong?

[Brian]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,epistemology is the study of how we know stuff.  No need for dots there.

Not quite.  I would re-phrase so it reads 'Epistemology is the study of how we come to understand stuff.’

[SocialistPunk]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

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.

YMS,Very soon we (I'm not sure how many countries do this) in Britain will be putting our clocks back one hour. The establishment has decided to move the measurement of time back and forth. I've no doubt that most of the population would prefer not to bother, but the establishment have decided. Sunlight is harmful, as anyone who has had sunburn can testify to. But I'm not interested in analogies.You say millions of workers have rejected socialism. I say how can any member of our class conciously reject something they have never come across or have had the most fleeting glimpse of? We can dismiss out of hand, but to conciously reject is very different.As you already know, capitalism didn't come about overnight, it evolved, Capitalist ideology still has many of the same concepts as previous societies, such as trade, money, laws and leaders, along with an unequal devision of societies wealth. How many times have you heard it said, "That's the way it's always worked."? Where did that idea come from I wonder?World socialism requires the concious majority of workers to bring about a revolution, not an evolution, of the structure of society. It is my view that this is an alien concept for most people, who are under the pervasive influence of ruling ideology. I think the vast majority of people are capable of grasping the concept, but it is not as simple as reading a leaflet or watching an election broadcast every now and then. For most would be socialists, it takes active investigation that can include asking questions and debating (it's what this forum is for).If you still disagree with me, that's fine, but you haven't given me a convincing counter argument yet.   

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

My position? You mean 'democratic controls on power'? I think it's called a 'minority position', but perhaps you're not au fait with the details of democracy?

I am very familiar with the details of democracy I daresay more than you since I've been a member for a number of years of an organisation that practises it not just a lone individual theorising about it.

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

Or is there a difference between saying "you are wrong" and saying "you are wrong to follow x"? Or are you saying "you are right, but wrong to hold that view"?

The notion of democracy seems to hold great difficulty for you. The majority is 'right', but any minorities can dissent.

As I understand it, democracy is summed up as "the majority has its way, the minority has its say". You seem to be turning this into "the majority is right, the minority is wrong".

LBird wrote:

So if a scientist says 'A', and their society, after reading the scientists reasoning, decide that 'B' is the 'truth', then 'B' is the truth. The scientist can disagree, but the science books say 'B'.

I take it the scientist can still publish a book saying A?

LBird wrote:

So, the dissenting scientist can say that 'they are right, and society is wrong to hold its views', but the books say 'B'. Does that answer your question?

I'm confused about the grammar here. You appear to be making the dissenting scientist have to say "you are right, but I think you are wrong". Is this what you mean? And that what the socialist minority today has to say to the pro-capitalist working class majority is: "You are right to support capitalism, but we think you are wrong to support capitalism". I don't see why we have to utter such contradictory nonsense. I'm going to continue saying "You support capitalism. that's your right but you're wrong".

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

Incidentally, when you tell us that we are "wrong to follow the ideology of materialism" (assuming that we do in your sense of the term, which we don't) why are we wrong? Is it because the majority of workers don't follow this view or because you personally think it is wrong for some other reason?

I do so because I claim 'materialism' is anti-democratic,

So, it's not because a majority of workers have rejected what you call "materialism" (not that we do support "materialism" in your sense, but that's a different argument and a different thread)? Come to think of it, why do you claim that your view of epistemology is right when most workers reject it? You ought to say "Critical Realism is wrong, but I think it ought to be right".You've heard the one about whether you can believe someone who says "All people are liars". There's a new one now about the person who says "I hold the minority view that all minority views are wrong"As I said

ALB wrote:

Your position is full of contradictions.

.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,epistemology is the study of how we know stuff.  No need for dots there.

Not quite.  I would re-phrase so it reads 'Epistemology is the study of how we come to understand stuff.'

I would appreciate your opinion, Brian, of my attempted explanation of the three versions of epistemology that gave in my post #59 on page 6.Does the explanation capture the essence of these three, to allow workers, who know nothing about epistemology, to orientate themselves towards these issues?Or can you think of how the explanation could be improved (or replaced entirely with better explanation), to help workers start to understand the options they are faced with in epistemology?I have already said that I think that ALB's 'strategy' of saying to workers that they should just carry on employing 'naive realism' (whether they understand the term and its political implication or not) is not acceptable, if we wish to help develop the class consciousness of the working class.In my opinion, 'naive realism', because it "takes things as seen by individuals themselves", is a conservative epistemology. To me, it's tantamount to saying either 'accept the reality of capitalism' (and so no revolutionary consciousness develops) or saying 'let the SPGB deal with philosophical issues, because workers shouldn't have to worry their tiny minds about 'difficult' philosophical issues' (and thus reintroducing Leninism).So, I think workers do need to understand something of epistemology, and my explanation is an attempt to allow workers to start to wrestle with these issues for themselves. The method chosen has political implications, and the sooner workers are aware of this, the better.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird,Having already provided quick descriptions of materialism, idealism and  marxism I also provided a definition of epistemology.  I'll also note I pointed out that your blank page description of idealism was just plain wrong, so of no use to workers whatever.SP,

Quote:

For most would be socialists, it takes active investigation that can include asking questions and debating (it's what this forum is for).

Quite, and most workers don't even feel the need to begin that level of examination.  If the workers wanted socialist ideas, they'd be beating a path to our door.  Or, as I'm sure you did, they'd be putting across socialist ideas themselves.  As it stands, for them the sun is green, and their daily experience concurrs with this.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

LBird,Having already provided quick descriptions of materialism, idealism and marxism I also provided a definition of epistemology. I'll also note I pointed out that your blank page description of idealism was just plain wrong, so of no use to workers whatever.

Thanks for your informed opinion, YMS.If you could just supply Brian, and any other reader who's interested, with the post number in which you provided these explanations of the three epistemological viewpoints, then they can compare our respective explanations, and give their opinion about which is the most helpful, to allow any worker who is very unfamiliar with these three viewpoints to orientate themselves, and begin to ask questions of the both of us.PS. as I said above, mine is post #59 on page 6.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

I have already said that I think that ALB's 'strategy' of saying to workers that they should just carry on employing 'naive realism' (whether they understand the term and its political implication or not) is not acceptable, if we wish to help develop the class consciousness of the working class.

You never stop, do you? I never said that. I just said that in practice people in their daily life act as if they were "naive realists", i.e treat the things they use as if they were separate entities. It's not a conscious thing (anymore than writing prose is) but it suffices for daily life. It's what we all do, including you. Even Dietzgern himself said it was ok for "household use".Of course "naive realism" is unacceptable as a method and theory of science. So, no need to make this false accusation again.

[Young Master Smeet]

HereHereHere&Here

[SocialistPunk]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

SP,

Quote:

For most would be socialists, it takes active investigation that can include asking questions and debating (it's what this forum is for).

Quite, and most workers don't even feel the need to begin that level of examination.  If the workers wanted socialist ideas, they'd be beating a path to our door.  Or, as I'm sure you did, they'd be putting across socialist ideas themselves.  As it stands, for them the sun is green, and their daily experience concurrs with this.

YMSThis is what you provide in answer to my questions about your view of our class deliberately and conciously rejecting socialism?The daily experience for our class is that the way it is now, is the way it has always been. That doesn't stop us from being unhappy with it, but we are told that although it isn't perfect it's the best there is. Then we are bombarded with examples of socialism/communism as it happened in Russia and China etc. That is the lived experience of our class and I agree with you that they are mistaken.The difference we seem to have is that you think our class has conciously rejected socialism as we define it, whereas I say it can't be conciously rejected if our class is not aware of it as we define it. You think that millions have been exposed, I say if millions have been exposed (and I have my doubts) then it is only a fleeting glimpse and not enough to turn most people on, as it can't compete with the daily pressures, distractions, lies and misinformation spread by the establishment.The information put out by us as socialists, whether individually in our daily lives or as members of the likes of the SPgb, is a "piss in the Atlantic" compared to the mega tsunami of lies and distortion of the the ruling ideology that permeates every apect of our lives.What I'm getting from our discussion is that you say the SPgb and WSM have been successful in their mission of exposing workers to socialism (Workers, millions of 'em!), and come to the conclusion that the workers have rejected socialism in favour of capitalism. Have I got that right?   

[Young Master Smeet]

SP,The Socialist Party has been succesful in staying in business, and developing a clear critique of capitalism and reaching out to let as many workers as we can manage know we're here.  What I am sayiong is that our propaganda won't make socialists, we're just holding up a sign to let workers who have come to socialist ideas themselves know we're here.  The revolution will not happen because workers have or have not been exposed to our case.  They won't even read it unlss they feel the need it, they'll continue to support capitalism as long as they feel they need capitalism.  Propaganda, whilst it does exist and is useful to the ruling class, cannot overrule the lived experience and capacity of workers to think.  It only works now because it is going with the grain.

[LBird]

You're partially right, and partially wrong, YMS.

YMS wrote:

What I am sayiong is that our propaganda won't make socialists, we're just holding up a sign to let workers who have come to socialist ideas themselves know we're here.

In this sense, you're right: workers have to start criticising the lives they lead. We can't make them critical.

YMS wrote:

The revolution will not happen because workers have or have not been exposed to our case.

If by our 'case', you mean 'Communism', then you're wrong. All sorts of 'revolutions' can happen because workers reject capitalism, but they won't necessarily be the sort we Communists want to see.

YMS wrote:

Propaganda, whilst it does exist and is useful to the ruling class, cannot overrule the lived experience and capacity of workers to think.

No, 'lived experience' will not necessarily produce 'Communist' ideas. Those ideas already exist, within the working class (we are evidence of that), and 'propaganda' is not only 'useful to the ruling class', but is essential for us to spread the 'idea' of Communism ever wider within our class.The dynamic that must come to be is: workers become critical, and worker-communists provide ideas.If neither workers become critical, nor 'communist ideas' are widespread, then there will not be a communist revolution. We Communists can't make other workers critical, and workers can't make 'lived experience' tell them how to take their criticism forward.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird,I think this comes down to the nub between us. I'd say socialism arises from the world as it actually exists now, and the only way we can understand socialism is by understanding this world (and therein the possibilities that present themselves to us which, whilst they may have already and always been present were not conscious previously).  That is, revolution does not come from a rejection from the world as it is, but through a dogged grip on the world as it stands.  I think that's the key distinstion between utopianism and marxian socialism.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,I think this comes down to the nub between us. I'd say socialism arises from the world as it actually exists now, and the only way we can understand socialism is by understanding this world (and therein the possibilities that present themselves to us which, whilst they may have already and always been present were not conscious previously).  That is, revolution does not come from a rejection from the world as it is, but through a dogged grip on the world as it stands.  I think that's the key distinstion between utopianism and marxian socialism.

Yeah, I think you're correct, here, too, YMS. This is the nub of our disagreement.You follow Engels, who separated out 'two' views.I follow Marx, who reconciled 'two' views, producing a 'third'.Workers have been following the 'Idealism versus Materialism' logic for 130 years.But since the 1920s, many thinkers have pointed out that without 'criticism of what exists' in our lives, both physical and philosophical, both in physics and sociology, both in experience and knowledge, then we are stuck with 'what exists'.'A dogged grip on the world as it stands' will give us 'the world as it stands'.And, in fact, once we move away from arcane philosophical issues, and discuss politics, you always take the side of elite experts and deny democratic controls.Your 'dogged grip' is preventing you from seeing the necessity of revolution throughout our world. That means in science and maths, as much as in the 'things you can touch'.That is, a revolution in both the 'material' and the 'ideal'. As Marx argued, and as Engels didn't.You think 'truth' is external to humans, I think 'truth' is produced by humans. You think 'truth' is 'material', I think 'truth' is 'social'.If 'truth' is external and material, it can't be criticised and changed. If 'truth' is socially produced, we can criticise 'what exists' and change 'truth'.

[DJP]

I wonder if LBird thinks that 'cows' and 'animals' are opposing catergories?FWIW worth this is the same mistake he is making in his understanding of "material" and "mental" (or perhaps better put as experiencial)..

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I wonder if LBird thinks that 'cows' and 'animals' are opposing catergories?FWIW worth this is the same mistake he is making in his understanding of "material" and "mental" (or perhaps better put as experiencial)..

There seems no point in responding yet again to this sort of thing, because it seems that many here have given up discussing the philosophical problems of (not only) YMS's following of Engels' 'materialism'.If those who can't provide a foundation of critical thought, for workers coming to consciousness of this world, have to allege that those who are arguing for a 'critical' approach can't tell the difference between a 'cow' and 'animals', then it will have to be left to workers to decide on the merits of the opposing arguments.I think that I've done my best to show why 'materialism' can't provide a critical basis, and further why it does provide a basis for Leninism, but it's up to others to sort out their own thinking on the issue.At least the SPGB is providing a space to air these differences.

[Author]

Posts