Gnostic Marxist
- This topic has 446 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote: “there is this quote from Pannekoek which clearly states that ideas are an equal part of the “real world” :
“The human mind is entirely determined by the surrounding real world. We have already said that this world is not restricted to physical matter only, but comprises everything that is objectively observable. The thoughts and ideas of our fellow men, which we observe by means of their conversation or by our reading are included in this real world.””
Yes, I agree with you and Pannekoek, ALB.
But if, as you say, ‘ideas are equal’… surely the ‘physical’ can no more be the basis of ‘ideas’, than ‘ideas’ can be the basis of the ‘physical’?
So, we all reject ‘materialism’ (which claims ‘consciousness’ emerges from ‘matter’), and all reject ‘idealism’ (which claims ‘matter’ emerges from ‘consciousness’).
Marx, Pannekoek, Gorter, etc. argued that we need to account for both ideal and material. They are both part of humanity.
The only way to reconcile ideal and matter is in conscious human activity. Or, social production.
Thus, social production is regarded as the creator of material and ideal. And if we create both, we can change both, which was Marx’s whole point.
And if ‘we’ are to change both, ‘we’ have to define just who ‘we’ are. Marx argued that the only ‘we’ is ‘humanity’, and not a ‘we’ which consists of ‘specialists’ or a scientific elite.
Only we, humanity, can determine our science, and only by democratic methods.
Lenin, and all ‘materialists’, as Marx argued they would, deny that humanity can democratically determine its social products, like its truth, its nature, its reality, etc. ‘Materialists’ argue that only an elite of physicists can determine physics, and they deny that our physics, which we humans create, can be democratic. ‘Materialists’ have to defend an elite.
I’ve tried to appeal to ‘democracy’ as grounds for discussion and reconciliation, even my joining, but the ‘materialists’ keep insisting that workers will not be allowed to democratically determine their own truth. The ‘materialists’ claim that there is a small elite, who should be allowed to get on with that scientific task, and people like you should keep their ignorant workers’ noses out of things, like physics, that don’t concern you.
LBird
Just to be clear this is NOT the position of the Socialist Party that you referring to here. The SP does NOT agree with any barriers being putting up to anyone wanting to participate in science and scientific discourse in a socialist society. YOU YOURSELF have agreed that there would be specialists in a socialist society and, by implication, you agree that there would be some people who would know a lot more about a particular subject than others. The layperson may be ignorant of the many of the things to which the specialist is privy but there will be nothing to prevent this layperson acquiring such knowledge if he or she so choses to.
As mentioned earlier, scientific specialists in one particular discipline of science would be part of the lay population as far as other scientific disciplines are concerned. Thus, there would be no “scientific elite” in this particular sociological sense. No individual can ever acquire more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge so it logically follows that, for every scientific discipline, there will necessarily be specialists and lay people.
Nor do we hold that that truth of any scientific theory should be determined by means of a vote – whether by the so called “scientific elite” or the general population. It is absurdly impractical and utterly pointless even trying to “democratically determine” such truth for reasons that have already been clear. Democracy has an important role to play in socialist society but as far as the origination of scientific theories is concerned people will be free to put forward whatever theories they want without being cowed into submission by some officially sanctioned version of The Truth
What is true for me may not be true for you. The point is to have a dialogue, not some ritualistic show of hands, if you really want to involve more people in science. This is what the SP advocates – the removal of barriers to participation and the encouragement of dialogue but without the silly pretence that we are, or ever will be, all equally knowledgeable in every branch of science
Marx, Pannekoek, Gorter, etc. argued that we need to account for both ideal and material. They are both part of humanity.
Agreed
The only way to reconcile ideal and matter is in conscious human activity. Or, social production.
You have made an assertion without any supporting evidence, you state that the only way to reconcile ideal and matter is in conscious human activity. Human activity is not the only form of animal consciousness, animals as diverse as octupuses and ravens have used tools to consciously change their environment.
Thus, social production is regarded as the creator of material and ideal. And if we create both, we can change both, which was Marx’s whole point.
Again an assertion with no underpinning evidence. Marx, Pannekoek, Gorter state “we need to account for both ideal and material” accounting for both the material and the ideal does not elevate social production to the status of the creator of material and ideal, therefore your conclusion that “if we create both we can change both” is invalid and illogical. Furthermore even if it were true it does not follow that just because you create something it is possible that you can change it. As a species we create an awful lot of carbon dioxide through breathing, that doesn’t mean we can change the way we breathe
Robbo, his absurd conclusion about humanity having to vote for everything follows from his basic mistaken assumption that the external world only exists in and through human consciousness, a classic idealist position.
In fact, from a philosophical point of view he is all over the place.
For instance:
“But if, as you say, ‘ideas are equal’… surely the ‘physical’ can no more be the basis of ‘ideas’, than ‘ideas’ can be the basis of the ‘physical’?”
Here’s Pannekoek’s answer (from the same earlier post):
“Wherein then, do middle-class materialism and Historical Materialism stand opposed to one another? Both agree insofar as they are materialist philosophies, that is, both recognise the primacy of the experienced material world; both recognise that spiritual phenomena, sensation, consciousness, ideas, are derived from the former.
In other words, stuff existed before ideas. But that doesn’t make ideas any less real, ie a part of the stream of phenomena that humans and, as has been pointed out, other animals experience. They just became part of the stream later.
Bijou Drains wrote: “…you state that the only way to reconcile ideal and matter is in conscious human activity.”
No, BD, Marx stated this. I just happen to agree with Marx.
ALB wrote: ” “[Pannekoek wrote:] …the primacy of the experienced material world…”
…In other words, stuff existed before ideas…”
No, ALB, it’s not simply ‘the material world’ (ie. ‘stuff’, or ‘matter’), but ‘the experienced…’.
According to Marx (as we’ve seen from our quotes earlier), any human ‘experience’ requires ‘consciousness’. And according to Marx, this ‘experience’ is not ‘passive’ (as materialists argued), but active (ie. productive, and not individual, but social).
When you separate ‘stuff’ from ‘ideas’, you’re ignoring Marx.
Bijou Drains wrote: “…you state that the only way to reconcile ideal and matter is in conscious human activity.”
No, BD, Marx stated this. I just happen to agree with Marx.
Again you make assertions that are incorrect. Where did Marx actually state the exact following words “the only way to reconcile ideal and matter is in conscious human activity”,
If you are unable to produce the exact quote, I can only assume you haven’t got it.
Marx wrote: “The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism – which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such.
Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from the thought objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective activity.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm
I know already that you won’t read or understand Marx, BD, but at least other workers who want to read and understand Marx’s social productionism will benefit.
You’d better stick to ‘kicking stones’ as your way to contemplate ‘matter’. It’s the same individualist method as when someone is asked about ‘value’ and replies, not that ‘value’ is a social relationship, but that ‘value’ is what an individual determines, without any socio-historical explanation.
I’ll bet that the ‘materialists’ can’t even see the similarities between the concepts ‘matter’ and ‘value’, and the opposed accounts of them. On one side, the materialists’ individualist passive assimilation of knowledge (they play no part in creating the knowledge, and leave that to the ‘experts’), whilst on the other, the Marxists’ social active production of knowledge (they play an inescapable social role in creating the knowledge, and insist that democratic methods must be employed).
On one side, the materialists’ individualist passive assimilation of knowledge (they play no part in creating the knowledge, and leave that to the ‘experts’), whilst on the other, the Marxists’ social active production of knowledge (they play an inescapable social role in creating the knowledge, and insist that democratic methods must be employed).
Here we go again, LBird. Have you relapsed back into your earlier way of thinking that scientific theories – tens of thousands of them – should all be subject to a vote? What precisely do you mean by “democratic methods must be employed” in the creation of knowledge?
Could you tell us once and for all whether this means “scientific theories should all be put to a vote”
robbo203 wrote: “What precisely do you mean by “democratic methods must be employed” in the creation of knowledge?”
robbo, don’t you get sick of asking the same question, over and over again, mate?
The statement means what it says, for any worker wanting democratic communism.
You (apparently) don’t want democratic communism, which is fine by me, but means you don’t share my ideology. It would be better for all of us if you did expose your ideology, but that’s up to you to do.
So, I’m a ‘democrat’ and a ‘communist’. A democrat believes that ‘democracy’ is the best political method. A ‘communist’ believes that ‘democracy’ should be employed throughout the communist mode of production. Humanity socially produces its social production, and ‘knowledge’ is an aspect of this social production. Democratic communists do not believe that there is an ‘expert elite’ of humans who know better than the entirety of humanity. Any elected experts can be removed if they fail to follow their mandate.
Now, if anyone doesn’t share these ideological beliefs (which were also Marx’s) of ‘democratic social production’, then they won’t accept that
“ “democratic methods must be employed” in the creation of knowledge“.Most probably, those who don’t hold these revolutionary beliefs will hold others, given to them by the present ruling class. These usually are:
1. individualism.
2. elitism.
3. a minority of ‘clever’, active, individuals contrasted with a majority of ignorant, passive, ‘normals’.
4. ‘science’ is politically-neutral (hence, a fear of ‘politics in science’), carried out by a clever elite, who disinterestedly (ie. in the interests of the whole of humanity) just passively discover ‘reality’ (a ‘reality’ that is not socio-historical, but is ‘just there’ waiting for the disinterested elite to pronounce ‘discovered’).
5. the majority can’t ‘do science’, because it is inherently ‘difficult’ and requires a mysterious language which the majority cannot fathom (bless their little earnest but thick socks!).robbo203 wrote: “Could you tell us once and for all whether this means “scientific theories should all be put to a vote””
It depend whether one believes that there is any source of ‘scientific theories’ outside of a humanity which socially produces its theories, robbo.
I suspect that if anyone hides the fact that they actually believe that a ‘clever, disinterested, elite’ forms the conscious active core of a mostly thick passive humanity (which is just what bourgeois ideology tells us, with its ‘Nobel Prizes’, etc.), then they will claim that ‘scientific theories’ shouldn’t be subject to democratic production.
On my part, as I’ve said, time and time again, ALL SOCIAL PRODUCTION MUST BE DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED. It’s called ‘democratic socialism’, robbo.
Sigh. Once again LBird – of course I hold that communism would be “democratically organised”. I just don’t believe democracy can and should be extended to the origination and validation of scientific theories. Please stop mispresenting me!!!
I think you have a very muddled approach to the whole question of “social production”. The laptop on which I am writing this response is “socially produced”. The components of which it is made each entail complex production chains going back to the extraction of the raw materials from Mother Nature. Each of these production chains involve multiple stages in the process eventuating in the production of those components in question which are then assembled into the laptop I am currently using.
Now all of these production chains or sequences of stages in the manufacture of a laptop, involve directly or indirectly, millions upon millions of workers distributed right across the globe. This is what makes this laptop a product of “social(ised) production”
So then what are to make of your comment:
On my part, as I’ve said, time and time again, ALL SOCIAL PRODUCTION MUST BE DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED. It’s called ‘democratic socialism’, robbo.
Do we take it then that all those millions and millions of workers directly or indirectly involved in the social production of this laptop must , according to you, should exercise democratic control over the entire process – every aspect of it – of producing a laptop from start to finish? That is completely bonkers, LBird, and even you must surely see this. It is totally totally impractical!
So just because something is “socially produced” does NOT automatically require that the process of producing it should be “democratically control”. There are limits – both practical and theoretical – to democracy which you don’t seem to grasp at all
That does NOT mean communism/socialism will not be substantially MORE democratic than is the case today under capitalism. You seem have this very simplistic black-or-white of the world inasmuch as you seem to think that if someone questions the need for democratic decision-making in certain aspects of life this means they repudiate democratic decision-making in toto. That doesn’t follow at all!
At any rate, once again you have wriggled out of directly answering my question of whether you think “scientific theories should all be put to a vote” by asserting:
It depend whether one believes that there is any source of ‘scientific theories’ outside of a humanity which socially produces its theories, robbo.
Since scientific theories are socially produced, and I agree that they are, in that they are product of collaborative effort over time, I take it then that you DO actually literally believe scientific theories – tens of thousands of them every year – should actually be put to a vote. Since humanity as a whole is involved in the production of this knowledge, according to you, one presumes you are saying it is humanity as a whole that should be enabled to vote on these theories
Could you please now directly answer these specific questions so we know more clearly what is going on in your mind:
1) Are you definitively saying that the 8 billion people that comprise humanity should be able to vote on whether, say, the concept of “anti-matter” in astrophysics is scientifically valid?
2) How do propose to organise this global plebiscite on whether the concept of anti matter is scientific valid? What sort of resources will be required to make this happen?
3) What happens if only 0.001 percent of the global electorate bother to cast a vote? Will the vote be declared null and void?
4) What do you propose to do about all the other already established scientific theories – hundreds of thousands of them? Will they also be subjected to a global plebiscite?
5) If more people vote in favour of a particular scientific theory than against it, will the opponents of the theory be required to drop their opposition to the theory and fall in line with the majority opinion? If not what exactly is the purpose of the vote in that case? What in your words, do you hope to accomplish by holding a vote?
I would appreciate a response from you to each of these specific questions
Democratic communists do not believe that there is an ‘expert elite’ of humans who know better than the entirety of humanity. Any elected experts can be removed if they fail to follow their mandate
LBird
Lets look at this argument of yours…
You have agreed that in socialism there will be specialists – that is people who have more knowledge in the particular field they specialise in than the general or lay population possesses on the subject. For example neuro-surgeons know a lot more about neurosurgery than you or I.
However, neuro-surgeons are part of the general or lay population when it comes to some other scientific discipline – for example, astrophysics. In that case, it is the astrophysicists who are the specialists or experts, not the neurosurgeons
My profession is landscape gardening and ground maintenance. Though I know precious little about neurosurgery or astrophysics, I warrant I know a damn sight more than probably most, if not all, neurosurgeons and astrophysicists about how to use a strimmer or chainsaw or how to construct a dry stone wall or what plants thrive best in the Mediterranean environment in which I live
We all have our own particular skill set. Specialism is always relative
So, to come back to the point you make, nobody here is saying there “is an ‘expert elite’ of humans who know better than the entirety of humanity”. Actually that is a silly argument since the entirety of humanity includes what you call the so called expert elite.
As I have tried to explain to you several times before – though my explanation seem to have fallen on deaf ears in your case – the very concept of an “expert elite” as some kind of entity separate from the rest of humanity as a whole makes no sense in a sociological sense. It is a complete. Experts outside of their chosen profession ARE LAY PEOPLE LIKE THE REST OF US. It is only within their chosen profession that they can be differentiated from the general population by virtue of having greater knowledge related to this particular profession . But their relation to other experts in other fields is no different to the rest of us. They are us!
You then go one to say “Any elected experts can be removed if they fail to follow their mandate” in socialism. Mandate to do what? What on earth are you talking about?
I can only imagine you envisage some sort of research programme being set up which an “elected expert” is tasked with overseeing and developing. OK this is not unreasonable. I’ve suggested something similar in an earlier post. This is an example of where democratic decision-making can indeed have a role to play in the praxis of science
But note that in this case we are not voting on the validity of some scientific theory; we are voting on the competence of an individual to carry out some research programme he or she has been mandated to do.
Big difference!
Democratic communists do not believe that there is an ‘expert elite’ of humans who know better than the entirety of humanity. Any elected experts can be removed if they fail to follow their mandate
LBird
Lets look at this argument of yours…
You have agreed that in socialism there will be specialists – that is people who have more knowledge in the particular field they specialise in than the general or lay population possesses on the subject. For example neuro-surgeons know a lot more about neurosurgery than you or I.
However, neuro-surgeons are part of the general or lay population when it comes to some other scientific discipline – for example, astrophysics. In that case, it is the astrophysicists who are the specialists or experts, not the neurosurgeons
My profession is landscape gardening and ground maintenance. Though I know precious little about neurosurgery or astrophysics, I warrant I know a damn sight more than probably most, if not all, neurosurgeons and astrophysicists about how to use a strimmer or chainsaw or how to construct a dry stone wall or what plants thrive best in the Mediterranean environment in which I live.
We all have our own particular skill set. Specialism is always relative
So, to come back to the point you make, nobody here is saying there “is an ‘expert elite’ of humans who know better than the entirety of humanity”. Actually, that is a silly argument since the entirety of humanity includes what you call the so called expert elite.
As I have tried to explain to you several times before – though my explanation seem to have fallen on deaf ears in your case – the very concept of an “expert elite” as some kind of entity separate from the rest of humanity as a whole makes no sense in a sociological sense. It is a complete. Experts outside of their chosen profession ARE LAY PEOPLE LIKE THE REST OF US. It is only within their chosen profession that they can be differentiated from the general population by virtue of having greater knowledge related to this particular profession . But their relation to other experts in other fields is no different to the rest of us. They are us!
You then go one to say “Any elected experts can be removed if they fail to follow their mandate” in socialism. Mandate to do what? What on earth are you talking about?
I can only imagine you envisage some sort of research programme being set up which an “elected expert” is tasked with overseeing and developing. OK this is not unreasonable. I’ve suggested something similar in an earlier post. This is an example of where democratic decision-making can indeed have a role to play in the praxis of science
But note that in this case we are not voting on the validity of some scientific theory; we are voting on the competence of an individual to carry out some research programme he or she has been mandated to do.
Big difference!
Democratic communists do not believe that there is an ‘expert elite’ of humans who know better than the entirety of humanity. Any elected experts can be removed if they fail to follow their mandate
LBird
Lets look at this argument of yours…
You have agreed that in socialism there will be specialists – that is people who have more knowledge in the particular field they specialise in than the general or lay population possesses on the subject. For example neuro-surgeons know a lot more about neurosurgery than you or I.
However, neuro-surgeons are part of the general or lay population when it comes to some other scientific discipline – for example, astrophysics. In that case, it is the astrophysicists who are the specialists or experts, not the neurosurgeons
My profession is landscape gardening and ground maintenance. Though I know precious little about neurosurgery or astrophysics, I warrant I know a damn sight more than probably most, if not all, neurosurgeons and astrophysicists about how to use a strimmer or chainsaw or how to construct a dry stone wall or what plants thrive best in the Mediterranean environment in which I live
We all have our own particular skill set. Specialism is always relative
So, to come back to the point you make, nobody here is saying there “is an ‘expert elite’ of humans who know better than the entirety of humanity”. Actually that is a silly argument since the entirety of humanity includes what you call the so called expert elite.
As I have tried to explain to you several times before – though my explanation seem to have fallen on deaf ears in your case – the very concept of an “expert elite” as some kind of entity separate from the rest of humanity as a whole makes no sense in a sociological sense. It is a complete. Experts outside of their chosen profession ARE LAY PEOPLE LIKE THE REST OF US. It is only within their chosen profession that they can be differentiated from the general population by virtue of having greater knowledge related to this particular profession . But their relation to other experts in other fields is no different to the rest of us. They are us!
You then go one to say “Any elected experts can be removed if they fail to follow their mandate” in socialism. Mandate to do what? What on earth are you talking about?
I can only imagine you envisage some sort of research programme being set up which an “elected expert” is tasked with overseeing and developing. OK this is not unreasonable. I’ve suggested something similar in an earlier post. This is an example of where democratic decision-making can indeed have a role to play in the praxis of science
But note that in this case we are NOT voting on the validity of some scientific theory; we are voting on the competence of an individual to carry out some research programme he or she has been mandated to do.
Big difference!
robbo203 wrote: “Sigh. Once again LBird – of course I hold that communism would be “democratically organised”. I just don’t believe democracy can and should be extended to the origination and validation of scientific theories. Please stop mispresenting me!!!”
I’m not ‘misrepresenting’ you, robbo.
I argue: “I hold that communism would be “democratically organised”“.
You argue “I hold that communism would be “democratically organised””
I argue ‘scientific theories’ are socially produced.
You argue ‘scientific theories’ are * produced (I’ve never got you to tell us what * represents).
If something is ‘socially produced’, since ‘I hold that communism would be “democratically organised”’, I argue that social production would be democratically organised.
You seem to argue for, on the one hand, ‘democratically organised’ communism, but on the other, regard ‘scientific theories’ as not part of ‘communism’.
We can’t resolve our differences, and thus answer our political questions of each other, until you give a satisfactory answer to why you regard ‘scientific theories’ as separate from democratic socialist production/ communism.
Again, to politically and philosophically answer your questions, robbo, which I think that many/most non-democrats will have about ‘democratic communism’, we need to resolve what assumptions are behind those questions.
It’s like someone demanding – ‘Just answer the question – if I’m not going to Heaven to be with God, where will I be going after death? You must mean to Hell with Lucifer!‘
It’s impossible to ‘just answer’, without discussing the various assumptions (life of some sort continues after death) and concepts (Heaven, Hell, God, Lucifer).
If we have differing assumptions, our answers are going to be different.
It makes sense, surely, to state our assumptions, link our concepts to those assumptions, and compare and contrast our conflicting answers.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.