Is the case for socialism, one of morality, cold logic or long term survival of our species?
- This topic has 359 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Have followed this debate with interest. I think any neutral but informed observer would have to conclude that Robin and LBird are absolutely right, and those attacking them with such vitriol are doing so because they are attached to an outdated religious dogma known as "materialism", and see any deviation from this dogma, even if it is grounded in modern science, as being some kind of heresy, to be burnt to the ground with scorn and invective. I wonder why it is that materialists need to engage in such ideological dispute anyway? What difference does it make to the mode of production if Robin is a bourgeois moralising idiot? And why do people who don't believe in morality criticise so strongly the moral failings of their opponents? Such puzzles!
stuartw2112 wrote:Have followed this debate with interest. I think any neutral but informed observer would have to conclude that Robin and LBird are absolutely right, and those attacking them with such vitriol are doing so because they are attached to an outdated religious dogma known as "materialism", and see any deviation from this dogma, even if it is grounded in modern science, as being some kind of heresy, to be burnt to the ground with scorn and invective.Thanks for your support, stuart.I think that all that Robin and I are trying to do is stimulate an informed discussion. It's always open to the 'materialists' to engage in discussion, but, as you say, 'vitriol', 'religion' and, I would say, 'ignorance' seem to be their preferred weapons of choice!They're not even aware of the political implications of the authors' views expressed in links that they provide, to 'science' and 'mind'!Mind you, if one's belief is in the 'neutrality of science', then any link will do.I'm patiently awaiting a link to be provided to Mengele's alma mater.
I have had enough of the Three Amigos! I'm going to a different pubWithout the vitriol
Vin Maratty wrote:I do not have a moral awareness of science.So, that would be the 'Mengele' moral awareness you have, then?You really should read your own links, Vin. I thought we were going to get somewhere today, and make some progress with someone. Bothering with twc is flogging a dead horse, though.Remember, only 'conservatives' deny having 'theory'. That would account for Mengele's morality (he was dealing with the 'real world' of science and bourgeois academics).
Quote:Mengele's interest in this field of study arose at a time when a number of prominent German academics and medical professionals were espousing the theory of "unworthy life," a theory which advanced the notion that some lives were simply not worthy of living.http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/history/mengele/nazi_3.htmlBut you? Why would you deny that you have 'a moral awareness of science'?Must be Engels, positivism, Lenin's reflection theory of knowledge, and the correspondence theory of truth, all at work!Who taught you to believe all this, Vin?
Vin Maratty wrote:So you do not believe that there is an objective reality to which we strive to understand?Thanks for that clarification.[my bold]I just noticed this aside.All the way through this discussion I've said, time and again, that I agree that there is an 'objective reality'. You really shouldn't adopt twc's 'cloth-eared' method, Vin.The point is STRIVE.'Strive' is an active verb, which suggests a process, not a passive mirror image. 'We' is social and thus historical.What's at issue is the socially-active historical process in which humans engage in their attempts at 'striving to understand'.Why won't you discuss this socio-historical process of understanding, Vin?
stuartw2112 wrote:I wonder why it is that materialists need to engage in such ideological dispute anyway? What difference does it make to the mode of production if Robin is a bourgeois moralising idiot? And why do people who don't believe in morality criticise so strongly the moral failings of their opponents? Such puzzles!The simple answer to this conundrum, stuart, is Leninism and the need for an authority outside of the control of the working class. Engels' misplaced 'scientism' is the perfect candidate, but Marx bears some responsibility for his casual 'positivist' usage in many texts (a usage which is at odds with his actual philosophical views), which seems to have confused the amateur Engels.
Castoriadis. “Marxism does not therefore transcend
the philosophy of history. It is merely another philosophy of
history.”Answer. Castoriadis is not a scientist. His critique
is that of the non-scientist perplexed by the methods of science.Science, unlike philosophy, is intended to be useful, to be practical, and so it
must be testable.Philosophy, on the other hand, is under no obligation to be useful, practical or
testable.Castoriadis makes the mistake of criticizing science by criticizing its
foundation — in Marx’s case, criticising the materialist conception
of history as if it were the science itself.He disagrees with Marx’s abstract foundation. Now, if he were a
practical scientist, he would simply go away and abstract his own better foundation
from the phenomena of history, and create his own abstract foundation upon which to
raise his own alternative science of history. That would be the scientific
end of the story.But Castoriadis mistakenly thinks he’s got to criticize the foundation
abstraction because it looks plain wrongheaded to him.But practical science cannot work by criticizing the foundation. It can
only work by building the science from the foundation up, and then criticizing the
science. You’ve got to give a science time and scope to prove its
worth.Consequently, once a scientific base has been chosen, scientists have no choice
but to treat it as sacrosanct and build the science upon it. It is the
scientific structure raised upon this abstract foundation that is scientifically
vulnerable and testable and open to attack.Finally, contrary to Castoriadis, the materialist conception of history
does therefore transcend a “philosophy of history” in the simple sense
that it is a science, a vulnerable working tool, that can be tested.Castoriadis. “The rationality it seems to extract
from the facts is a rationality which it actually imposes upon them.”Answer. Well, of course it does. This is the
non-scientist perplexed by the only way science can proceed, except that he
imagines that it’s wrong to do so.Abstraction from phenomena in order to apply back —“impose” in
Castoriadis’s language — is entirely deliberate and entirely
sensible.(twc.2)Why else would you bother to make abstraction in the first place?
There is only one reason for abstracting from concrete phenomena, and that is to
be able to recognize and comprehend other concrete instances of the same class of
phenomena we haven’t yet come across. We don’t keep that
secret. We apply it back upon similar phenomena to comprehend them.For example, we abstract from tigers something like “big ferocious cat
with stripes”. That’s our abstraction from concrete
phenomena. Once we have assimilated the abstraction, however good or
imperfect it may be, we apply it back on new concrete instances that we’ve
never encountered before, and hopefully we can now recognize other tigers whenever
we encounter them, and take appropriate action.There’s nothing mysterious about the abstraction process. What we
take away we apply. Or we take in order to put back. We do this all
the time.The only difference is that scientists do it consciously and systematically.
Thus Castoriadis, the non scientist, is simply describing the really simple way
all theoretical science works, because it’s the only way science can
work.Of course, Castoriadis thinks that we abstract “facts” as he
miscalls them. That is wrong. We simply do not abstract
“facts”. Facts are our descriptions of phenomena and inhabit a
different conceptual realm from our abstractions.Abstractions cannot be facts, because they are abstracted from numerous
“facts” in order to explain each of those numerous facts and other
instances of them.Castoriadis. “The ‘historical necessity’ of which it
speaks (in the usual sense of this expression, namely that of a concatenation of
facts leading history towards progress) in no way differs, philosophically
speaking, from hegelian Reason.”Answer. The same criticism can be made of Darwinism. All
explanation rests upon abstract necessity, or determinism. Necessity is the
other abstraction science makes from processes (twc.3).That’s simply the way science abstracts necessity from phenomena.
Newton did, Darwin did, etc. Popper used the same argument against Darwin.It’s because abstract determinism, or necessity, is dynamic that we
can’t test the abstract foundation without seeing how it develops
dynamically.Castoriadis. “In both cases one is dealing with a
truly theological type of human alienation. A communist Providence, which
would so have pre-ordained history as to produce our freedom, is nevertheless a
Providence.”Answer. Then, for Castoriadis, all deterministic science is
Providence.Castoriadis. “In both cases one eliminates the
central concern of any reflexion: the rationality of the (natural or
historical) world, by providing oneself in advance with a rationally constructed
world.”Answer. Correct, one constructs in advance a rationally
constructed world. So do all practical working scientists, like Euclid, Newton,
Darwin and the quantum mechanicists, etc.Castoriadis’s implication is that they should have constructed an
irrational world. This is the same drivel as Sorel.All science provides in advance a rationally constructed world.
Castoriadis had only to ask himself if anyone attempts to comprehend the world,
practically, how impractical would it be to pre-construct an irrational world, and
then test it rationality.Science is not a philosophical toy, but a practical human enterprise.
It’s hard enough as it is, without starting out making it irrational.In short, Castoriadis does not comprehend Marx’s scientific motivation as
the critique of appearance.Sure, Castoriadis, the world of appearance is chaotic and contingent.
That’s precisely why we construct a science to comprehend it practically, and
why we shun a philosophy that does not aim for practical utility.All abstraction is pure and totally rational, and that is the inescapable price
we must pay. It is the application, the working out, of the science that has
the unenviable task of deriving and explaining the contingent.Castoriadis. “A history that would be rational from
beginning to end – and through and through – would be more massively
incomprehensible than the history we know. Its whole rationality would be
founded on a total irrationality, for it would be in the nature of pure fact, and
of fact so brutal, solid and all-embracing that we should suffocate under
it””Answer. That is the nature of all science. Take
Newton. His three laws are perfect, and yet his first doesn’t apply to
anything concrete at all. The very same critique could be offered against
Darwin, etc.Castoriadis. “This was the science that the founders
of “scientific socialism” had sucked into their bones; the science of elegant
universalism, of cosmological laws to which there were no exceptions, of systems
that would encompass the whole of reality in their net. — no
exceptions!”Answer. What rubbish. This can be said of any
science.Castoriadis mistakenly assumes that necessary pure abstraction must be messy and
contingent. Please explain how any practical science could operate if its
foundational abstractions weren’t pure. They are, after all,
abstractions.Castoriadis. “The very structure of this kind of
thinking reflected the confident ambitions of a capitalism in full development. In
the air was the promise that life itself would soon be amenable to the same
mathematical manipulations that had successfully predicted the motions of the
stars, the combinations of the atoms and the propagation of light” (C.
Castoriadis, Introduction to History as Creation , Solidarity Pamphlet, London
1978. p.4)Answer. Utter philosophical infantilism.
Marx wrote:Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry.
The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different
forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only after this work is
done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done
successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a
mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori
construction.Conclusions
I challenge you point blank to show clearly that anything Castoriadis says is not
misguided.I consider your bourgeois anti-Marxist to be a scientific ignoramus.
I am appalled. What is truly disturbing is how you fell for such a stupid
person against the intelligent Marx!And how, oh how, can you seriously square any of this abject philosophical
misunderstanding of science and of Marx with the SPGB DOP and
Obj?twc wrote:Robbo, that’s why I reserved a consecutive spot for Part 2 — the details. It’s a pity my numbered cross references will be split across pages, but that can’t be helped.You’ll just have to wait.You just trashed most of Marx. It’s easy to destroy. Building takes a little longer.Rest assured, unlike you, I will answer every last point you make.Im truly disappointed TWC. After the damp squip that was your Part 1, we have the equally damp squib that is your Part 2. The Castoriadis quote was not really central to my argument at all though I think the arguments you raise against him are weak and unconvincing , full of the usual non sequiturs and ad hominens, The meat of my argument which did not centre on Castoriadis' views , unfortunately, you have once again evaded despite you promising you would answer "every last point" I made. The central planks of my argument were two fold1) a critique of your reductionist and mechanical version of "materialism"2) a critique of your interpretation of "exploitation"You haven't begun to deal with the first of these and explain how exactly the base "determines" the superstructure when the elements that constitute the superstructure. – ideas beliefs values etc – have always been there right from the very start , coexistent with the base and indeed are, to an extent, presupposed by the very relations of production themselves that constitute that base, in Marxian parlance, along with the forces of production themselves. How for example are private property rights asserted or imposed without this implying an ethic that sanctions and upholds private property? These are important questions that seem to fall below the radar of your mechanistic cum reductionist understanding of "materialism" You have made some attempt to deal with the question of exploitation but not very convincingly at all. You have brashly asserted Robbo Denies Exploitation is Objective missing the point of what I was actually saying which is that exploitation necessarily implies a moral dimension (which is why the case for socialism must necessarily involve a moral aspect insofar as it seeks to abolish class exploitation) and so is not purely objective in that sense. Note that Im not saying that it is not objective at all. There is a difference You have defined "objective" thus: People can disagree on their evaluation of any phenomenon, but still agree on its objectivity. For if something is objective, it is accessible to others. Well, if exploitation is purely objective why is it that is does not appear "accessible" to the great bulk of the population who see nothing intrinsically exploitative in the wage labour-capital relation? Why do most workers go along with the slogan "a fair days wage for a fairs day work", the implication being that if they got a fair days wage they would not be exploited? Exploitation to them is not what exploitation is to us schooled in Marxian economics. Exploitation to them simply means being harshly treated by your employer or being paid a lower than average wage. Exploitation in our sense of the word is not really obvious or "accessible" at all and therefore by your own definition. is not purely objective at all. It isa a particular interpretation or selection of the facts that allows us to say workers exploited in the Marxian sense and how we interpret or select the facts necessarily brings in the question of VALUES – something you baulk against as an old fashioned 19th century positivist Oh, and by the way, Im still waiting to hear how you get round John Bates Clark's claim (see post 90) without invoking the question of values. If a capitalist works for 10 minutes and claims his 10 minute contribution is equivalent to a full days work by one of his employers how would you refute his claim? What are the purely "objective criteria" you would use to weight different labour contributions that would convincingly show the capitalist is still exploiting the worker if as you suggest, exploitation is a purely objective matter?
You can bloody well wait.Do you really imagine that someone can just wade through Castoriadis’s crap in five minutes, and provide a coherent critique of it. Since no-one else on the planet has bothered to dissect him, mostly because his fellows are all philosophers of sorts and probably agree with him, why should it only take five minutes.Like all science it takes work. Not like philosophy which can waffle on without constraint.Well, you fell for Castoriadis hook, line and sinker, or you wouldn’t have given him such prominence. Now you back-track from him. Your integrity has immediately sunk in my estimation. You wouldn’t have proferred his critique of Marx if you thought it wasn’t devastating. Now you lack the guts to stick to your guns, yet won’t admit as much, but instead make the feeble excuse that “Castoriadis was not central to my argument”. What unbelievable Jesuitical casuistry.Well, some of Castoriadis was obviously central to your argument, and so tell me which bits were, and then prove that you were right and that Castoriadis has demolished Marx’s materialist conception of history, and Marx’s Capital, which is its working out for capitalism. Has he or hasn’t he demolished Marx, or are you going to back-track even further once you contemplate the implications of your stupidity in trusting an avowed anti-Marxist non-scientific demolition of Marx, the practical vulnerable scientist.Furthermore, please show me that Marx simply imposed a confident 19th century globalism upon the nature of the capitalist process of production and distribution, and that it is 19th century reductionist positivism. Prove it, just don’t just say it! That was your great clincher. Castoriadis’s masterstroke! Are you running away from that too? How central or peripheral was that cheap jibe?And, if you think I got Castoriadis wrong, don’t just say so like an impractical and unhelpful philosopher, but show me where I got him wrong like a practical and helpful scientist. In other words, you be prepared to make yourself useful and vulnerable.As to not answering the rest of your points. You can wait. If I promise to get to your points, I’ll get to them.Now, you answer my last point about your ambivalent relationship to the DOP and Obj, which were essentially formulated by Marx [ask ALB if you want assurance on this score] as consequences of and in accordance with what for you is reductionist 19th century positivism. How do you square that with your socialist position? One of them’s got to give.
robbo203 wrote:You haven't begun to deal with the first of these and explain how exactly the base "determines" the superstructure when the elements that constitute the superstructure. – ideas beliefs values etc – have always been there right from the very start , coexistent with the base and indeed are, to an extent, presupposed by the very relations of production themselves that constitute that base, in Marxian parlance, along with the forces of production themselves.robbo, I think that the 'base' consists of both 'forces' and 'relations' of production.What's more, both also contain human elements, and therefore, 'ideas'. This is before we even get to the 'superstructure'.The forces contain 'the means of production' (inherited from the past) and 'labour-power' (present capacity to work).The relations contain 'class structure' (ownership and control) and 'class struggle' (exploitation).Within the means are natural resources (raw materials, energy sources, human population) and historical resources (tools, technology, fire, buildings, earthworks).Within labour-power are Individual Labourer (with abilities, skills, techniques, methods) and Social organisation (knowledge, division of labour, motivation, science).Class structure and struggle perhaps speak for themselves.So, the 'base' also contains your 'superstructural' elements of 'ideas, beliefs, values, etc.'This inclusion of humans at every level of base and superstructure helps us to keep notions of 'technological determinism' and 'material conditions telling humans' at bay.In fact, I think that a better metaphor than 'base and superstructure' is 'soil and plant'. This allows us to regard it as a living relationship, in which both contribute to the other. The soil feeds the plant (and is historically prior), but decomposing plants, in turn, feed the soil (which without nutrients would lose its ability to sustain life.The 'base/superstructure' model is based upon a 19th century mechanical building metaphor, but it's become an (unmeant) rigid system, which only encourages the nonsense of the 'materialists' and their one-way determination.To sum up, human ideas are as important (and are as widespread throughout) as 'conditions'.
I'm posting this here because it is related to some of the points made in previous posts. It's the first chapter from Ellen Meiskins Wood's book "Democracy Against Capitalism" the first 5 chapters are concerned with how "historical materialism" can be coherently formulated (hint: neither as "base-superstructure", "technological determinism" or "economic determinism")http://libcom.org/library/separation-economic-political-capitalism-ellen-meiskins-wood
twc wrote:You can bloody well wait.Do you really imagine that someone can just wade through Castoriadis’s crap in five minutes, and provide a coherent critique of it. Since no-one else on the planet has bothered to dissect him, mostly because his fellows are all philosophers of sorts and probably agree with him, why should it only take five minutes.Like all science it takes work. Not like philosophy which can waffle on without constraint.Well, you fell for Castoriadis hook, line and sinker, or you wouldn’t have given him such prominence. Now you back-track from him. Your integrity has immediately sunk in my estimation. You wouldn’t have proferred his critique of Marx if you thought it wasn’t devastating. Now you lack the guts to stick to your guns, yet won’t admit as much, but instead make the feeble excuse that “Castoriadis was not central to my argument”. What unbelievable Jesuitical casuistry.My, my – you are certainly one for the melodrama. I didn't "back track" from Castoriadis but Im not a Castoriadis groupie either. Here's what I actually said before you get into even more of a lather:I am reminded of something that Castoriadis wrote in a little pamphlet called History as Creation. Though I dont agree with a lot of things he wrote (I have several of his works) he does sometimes hit the nail on the head as is often the case in this pamphlet. Check out the link here – its worth a read https://libcom.org/files/history%20as%20creation%20searchable%20and%20re… Here's the relevant comment which is directed at precisely the kind of "objective rationalism" to which you seem so fondly attached. I simply used the quote because I thought it rather nicely captured your perspective – which is precisely what he calls "objective rationalism". I haven't back tracked from that position at all. I think that is what your perspective is and I think he is correct in his criticism of it. . Where's the backtracking?But the point still stands- you have evaded my main arguments. The Castoriadis quote was just the foreplay so to speak and it rather annoyed that you chose to focus exclusively on that while ignoring everything elseSo when, TWC , are you going respond to those main arguments as promised . You said earlier "that’s why I reserved a consecutive spot for Part 2 — the details". Well, "the details" didnt appear in Part 2 – did they?= and in the meantime you accuse others of ..what was it?…lacking the guts to stick to their guns. Hhhmmm
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:You haven't begun to deal with the first of these and explain how exactly the base "determines" the superstructure when the elements that constitute the superstructure. – ideas beliefs values etc – have always been there right from the very start , coexistent with the base and indeed are, to an extent, presupposed by the very relations of production themselves that constitute that base, in Marxian parlance, along with the forces of production themselves.robbo, I think that the 'base' consists of both 'forces' and 'relations' of production.What's more, both also contain human elements, and therefore, 'ideas'. This is before we even get to the 'superstructure'.
Yup . Absolutely. Thats what the above quote of mine actually says. But people like TWC would have us believe that the base somehow "determines" the superstructure. I would love to know how and in what sense that is true. As I said in post 90 I think that is a particular way of looking at things which is arguably peculiar to capitalism. In other societies things may well be radically different . Levi Strauss, as I mentioned, ventured the opinion that in "primitive" societies the rules of kinship and marriage have an "operational value equal to that of economic phenomena in our own society" . Personally I like the quote from Carolyn Merchant which seems to sum up things rather well:An array of ideas exists available to a given age: some of these for unarticulated or even unconscious reasons seem plausible to individuals or social groups; others do not. Some ideas spread; others die out. But the direction and accumulation of social changes begin to differentiate between among the spectrum of possibilities so that some ideas assume a more central role in the array, while others move to the periphery. Out of this differential appeal of ideas that seem most plausible under particular social conditions, cultural transformations develop (The Death of Nature: Women , Ecology and the Scientific Revolution, Harper and Row 1980 p.xviii)
Sigh. How many times do I have to say it TWC before the penny drops? I only quoted Castoriadis because of his critique of what he calls "objective rationalism". Objective rationalism is what sums up your position in my opinion. I agree with Castoriadis' critique of that position. I have not said anything about Marx's view on the matter and, truth be told, I think he somewhat misrepresents Marx view even if he accurately captures your view. That is because I dont think your crass mechanical materialism is the kind of materialism Marx espoused. I think your materialism is more akin to the kind of materialism Lenin espoused which was criticised by Pannekoek in his "Lenin as philosopher" . Instead what we get from you is yet another long-winded bad-tempertered turgid screed which is essentially much ado about nothing, All froth and no substance. And you know TWC, you have a nasty little habit of attributing to people things they didnt say. Just at random – and your peice is littered with such examples – here's one: But please don’t attribute your phrase about kinship as being original to Levi-Strauss, But I didnt say it was "original" to Levi Strauss did I ? Nor did I "fall for" Levi Strauss as you stupidly claim – like you stupidly think I go along with everything Castoriadis wrote. I merely offered it up as another perspective, suggesting it was "food for thought". You are constantly doing this sort of thing – making unwarranted assumptions – and it gets a bit tiresome having to wade through your torrent of misrepresentations all the timeI suggest you read in full the pamphlet Castoriadis wrote and then come back with more informed criticism. I dont think you have understand what he is saying. He is talking about the claim that the total pattern of history is rational; or determined, a point that seems to have wholly escaped you. Read in particular what he wrote about Objective RationalismOnce you ve done that you can turn your attention to the main arguments I presented which you misled us into thinking you would answer in your " Part 2". For now, I have to buzz off to work pronto being a proletarian wage slave. Im already late as it is….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.