Question about historical materialism
- This topic has 181 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:I'll try once more with you, robbo, but since I've said these things before, I think that you already know what you're about to read. But, there might be others who actually do want to see workers' democracy.
Let’s go through these points one by one again, LBird, since all too predictably you have completely evaded them in the deluded belief that you have somehow answered them. Point number ONE. I asked you what was the point a universal vote on the Truth of some scientifc theory. “How is it going to make any difference if you support a theory and it gets voted down by a majority? Does that mean you must henceforth abandon the theory?” To which you answered as follows
LBird wrote:Because we know from the actually history of science (not the myth of 'science' put about by bourgeois scientists, anti-democrats all) that science by its social theory and practice can produce ideas and policies which are dangerous to the majority. For example, eugenics. This was a socio-historical product of science, and had the status of a 'scientific fact', and produced 'official policies' which led to the sterilisation of those deemed by the elite to be 'inferior'. Clearly, it would have made a difference if this 'theory' had been voted down by a majority, if it had been produced in a society where the social activity of science was under democratic control. So, yes, those 'eugenicist' scientists in a society of that sort would be forced to abandon the theory. They would be prevented from advocating the sterilisation of humans.Firstly, do I really need to state the obvious – that you don’t force 'eugenicist' scientists to “abandon the theory” by preventing them from advocating the sterilisation of humans. These are two quite different things. It was quite possible for them to continue believing in the theory even if they are prevented by your thought police from advocating it. Unlike you, I am democrat. I take the view that the most effective way to dispel and disarm a repugnant idea is not by driving it underground but by confronting it and defeating it through rational argument. Repugnant ideas flourish because of the conditions that allow them to flourish, exist. Unless you remove those conditions, those ideas will continue to flourish. Those conditions include the lack of opportunities to question received wisdom or the established Truth (which is precisely the kind of social fascism you are advocating). I note that you automatically assume workers will vote against eugenics theory but what happens if they don’t? What would you do then? You would be forced by the logic of your own argument to advocate or at any rate, condone, eugenics Secondly, you completely ignore my all -important point that democracy is about practical matters, it is not about the truth status of scientific ideas, meaning it is pointless voting about on whether such ideas are “true” or not. If the proposal was made that human beings should be forcibly sterilised as a policy decision then, yes, of course this should be opposed by a democratic vote precisely because this is a practical matter. I repeat democracy is about practical matters that have a practical effect on us Thirdly, though you give the example of eugenics theory to support your argument on the grounds that it could lead to socially undesirable consequences, there are hundreds of thousands of other scientific theories which according to you all without exception need to be voted upon by the entire world population but which theories have no discernible socially adverse consequences whichever way the vote went. To give the example I used – what possible socially adverse consequences could arise from a vote on a new scientific theory on the asexual reproduction of tape worms which you expect the world population to participate in? Point number TWO. You state this in opposition to my point that the science as a self-critical enterprise and that what you are advocating substitutes for science a kind of quasi-religious authority
LBird wrote:This is a repetition of the bourgeois myth about their 'science', that it is a 'self-critical enterprise'. It is often not 'self-critical' whatsoever, and almost everyday in the newspapers we can read accounts of 'scientists' ignoring evidence, manufacturing evidence, and suppressing evidence that clashes with their 'theory'. And even where there is 'criticism', criticism is always from the perspective of a 'theory', and so their so-called 'criticism' never criticises their social power as 'scientists'. Bourgeois scientists never accept the need for democratic controls on their socio-political activities. All science involves power. .It is remarkable LBird that you cannot see just how similar you are to the very “bourgeoisie” you criticise. You witter on about the bourgeois myth about their 'science' being a 'self-critical enterprise' and how they go about “suppressing evidence that clashes with their 'theory'”. But what are you advocating? The truth is you are advocating the very same thing! You admit it yourself! You are saying that when a theory gets voted down by the people, proponents of the theory will not be allowed to continue advocating it or present evidence in support of it because it conflicts with the Truth as established by a democratic vote Point number THREE. You completely misrepresent my view on the role of science and democracy when you argue, thus
LBird wrote:robbo gives his game away, here, because I always argue for democratic authory, and robbo, because he is an individualist and thinks 'elite scientists' should simply be trusted, wants any democratic political interference to be deemed 'quasi religious'. Of course, robbo is hiding the fact that there is a quasi religious authority in science today – the 'elite scientists' themselves. They are the modern priests, conducting a religious order, separated and hidden from most of us workers.Firstly, I feel I need to repeat once again the point that the role of democracy has to do with the practical affairs of society not with with the Truth status of scientific theories. My point is that there is simply no point in voting on the truth of such theories. To do so is indeed a quasi religious attitude to science Secondly, not once did I ever suggest that scientists “should simply be trusted”. Of course, it is desirable for there to be a two channel of communication between scientists and laypersons. I am opposed to an elitist views of science that treats scientists as if they were some kind of anointed priesthood. However, let’s be clear about this. No one person including even the most gifted scientist on the planet can ever know more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge. My view of science in socialist society is that individuals should be completely free to pursue whatever line of scientific enquiry that might interest them. There should be no barriers placed in the way of this happening which is why I opposed to an elitist model of science which serves precisely to enforced such barriers. At the same time I recognise that there will be such a thing as a social division of labour in socialism. Some people will inevitably be more accomplished in some things than others in such a society and it is stupid to deny this. In your fantasy world, there will be no such differences. Everyone will be exactly the same in ability and aptitude and we will all know evertthing there is to know about everything so as to vote comfortably on the thousands of new scientific theories that come into circulation each and every day. In your fantasy world, we will spending all our time voting on each and every one of these new theories although sadly even we will not have time enough to vote on even a tiny fraction of them Point number FOUR. You bring up the thorny question of “materialism”
LBird wrote:I've always argued that Marx was correct on this point. We should 'doubt everything' including supposed 'objective science'. robbo pretends to agree with Marx, but when robbo is asked should the nature of the sun be put to a vote, he denies this power to the majority, and insists that an elite of 'materialists', which includes robbo, already know what the sun is, and that the majority can't know this, because otherwise robbo would have no problem with a vote.Marx claims that we create our object. I agree with Marx, but the materialists, like robbo, don't. The materialists claim that we don't create matter, whereas Marxists claim that 'matter' has a history, and we can study when it originated, and why, and how it has changed, by looking at the various modes of production within which the social product of 'matter' has been socially produced.Firstly, what is this “power” that LBird refers that is being mysteriously denied to the majority by them not being able to vote on the question of what is the nature of the sun? LBird doesn’t say. He doesn’t say because he can’t say, because quite simply he seems to be completely clueless about what he is talking about. Words just gush out of him mindlessly in some unstoppable stream of gibberish. “Power” refers to ability of someone to impose their wishes on someone else against their will. But how is not feeling it necessary to vote on the nature of the sun an exercise in “power”. This is just so daft. What I am saying is that if you want to believe the sun is one thing and I think it is something else then go ahead and be my guest. I am not trying to impose my interpretation on you. I can’t anyway and that surely is the point. Power has to do with practical matters, not the truth of a scientific theory Secondly, Marx did not say “we create our object” e.g. the sun. Once again this is a really stupid argument LBird is presenting because he is trying to put it in a form that appears literal while pretending to mean something else The sun is billions of years old and homo sapiens is only – what one hundred thousand years old or so – so we cannot have literally created the sun. Now LBird knows very well that this is the case but likes to play word games. If he had said “we create the IDEA or interpretation of the object” I would have little or no difficulty in agreeing with him – and he is lying through his teeth if he thinks I believe our interpretation of the world around is not socially produced – but it seems he is once again just intent on drawing out this whole sterile argument about materialism for the sake of it Point number FIVE. LBird contends
LBird wrote:robbo is an anti-democrat, and an individualist, so robbo can see no good reason for democracy in science. robbo trusts an elite, especially the ultimate elite for individualists, their biological senses. robbo doesn't agree that our knowledge of everything, including the sun, is a socio-historical product, and so we can change it. Marxists argue that those changes must be controlled by society, by democratic methods. robbo wishes to determine what the sun is, by looking at it, by feeling heat upon the skin. This is the bourgeois method, of individual biological sensation. It is not a suitable method for democratic socialism, and its aim to democratically control all social production.Firstly if I am an individualist ( I still don’t think LBird knows what this means and is confusing “individualism” with “individuality”) then so is Marx and both of us are vehemently opposed to LBird’s totalitarian view of society which stems from his core Leninist ideology and his endorsement of society wide central planning. Actually if anything Marx was even more of individualist than I am in LBird’s sense of the word . For example in the German Ideology we find him saying: “Communists do not preach morality at all…They do not put to people the moral demand: love one another, do not be egoist etc; on the contrary, they are very well aware that egoism, just as much as self-sacrifice, is in definite circumstances a necessary form of the self-assertion of individuals. Hence, the communists by no means want…to do away with the "private individual" for the sake of the "general", “self-sacrificing man”. I would never go that far since I believe the case for socialism is both a moral one and one based on self interests”. I would however endorse Marx when he say “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” But LBird would oppose Marx on this because he would consider this statement of Marx’s to be an expression of “individualism” Secondly, LBird declares that I am an “antidemocratic”. This demonstrates that LBird is willing to stoop to outright dishonesty to score a cheap point. I have made it perfectly clear that I fully support the concept of democratic decision making in socialism but where it is needed – in the practical affairs of society – and not here it is not needed such as in the determination of the truth of scientific theories. Democracy therefore has clearly defined limits and I advocate democracy up those limits. LBird does not. Local forms of democracy will be banned or prohibited in LBird’s totalitarian society which recognises only one single decision-making body – namely the entire global population deciding in concert. Since this is a totally impossible then, in de facto terms. what this means is LBird is calling for is a form of extreme fascism in which all power perforce will be concentrated in the hands of a tiny few and against which no countervailing powers must ever be allowed to emerge
Quote:An epic story of courage, genius and terrible folly, this is the first history of how the Soviet Union's scientists became both the glory and the laughing stock of the intellectual world.Simon Ings weaves together what happened when a handful of impoverished and underemployed graduates, professors and entrepreneurs, collectors and charlatans, bound themselves to a failing government to create a world superpower. And he shows how Stalin's obsessions derailed a great experiment in 'rational government'.Young Master Smeet wrote:"[T]hese things could occur, but the logic of capitalism(…)is the development of a working class movement capable of abolishing capitalism, and in whose interest it is to create socialism. "Sure, it's the interest of the working class to create socialism, but most workers today aren't socialists. Most of their parents weren't socialists. Most of their grandparents weren't socialists. I don't know if it is your opinion I'm arguing against right now, but why would class consciousness have to develop?"Capitalism is not interesting except for the category of the propertyless working class who could realise socialism."What does this mean?"Arguably, it was the discovery of the Americas, and the huge surpluses of gold and people that lead to capitalism, not feualism itself (although we can look at the years preceeding the Black Death for a former occasion that feudalism nearly burst its bounds."What you've written here appears to me as a rejection of the idea that there exists a law that says that less developed societies eventually turn into more developed ones. Would that be contrary to historical materialism?"That is a good question, i'd say yes, that antagonism is inherently unstable, and so eventually it must lead to a crisis and dramatic change: that change is not teleological leading from one thing to the next, and i can swing back and forth many times, per my black death example above, feualism re-asserted itself very strongly after that."But we can see in modern history that there is class conflict, and then nothing happens. The inherent conflict remains yet the system remains aswell.I kind of see it as a matador and a bull for the moment. The bull might kill the matador eventually in a bullfighting session but it is not certain.
jondwhite wrote:Quote:An epic story of courage, genius and terrible folly, this is the first history of how the Soviet Union's scientists became both the glory and the laughing stock of the intellectual world.Simon Ings weaves together what happened when a handful of impoverished and underemployed graduates, professors and entrepreneurs, collectors and charlatans, bound themselves to a failing government to create a world superpower. And he shows how Stalin's obsessions derailed a great experiment in 'rational government'.jdw, does this book address the issue of democracy in science, and how the Stalinists denied it (as they did in the polity), or is it the usual bourgeois propaganda about 'Socialism = Stalinism'?If it does the former, I'll get a copy.
Sympo wrote:"[T]hese things could occur, but the logic of capitalism(…)is the development of a working class movement capable of abolishing capitalism, and in whose interest it is to create socialism. "Sure, it's the interest of the working class to create socialism, but most workers today aren't socialists. Most of their parents weren't socialists. Most of their grandparents weren't socialists. I don't know if it is your opinion I'm arguing against right now, but why would class consciousness have to develop?Class consciousness has developed, and been there since the start, as EP Thompson points out, the working class was there at its own creation, and made itself. Socialist consciousness can only come about from the impossibility to retaining capitalist consciousness among the workers. For example, worker's unions drove forward the existence of the wage relation, using market forces to destroy the restrictive feudal practices of bonded labour, it was an emancipation, of sorts. When we can no longer use our market power to improve our lot, we will have to rely on political power (that is very true these days), when political power is frustrated, we will have to overturn the system. It's just a timescale cannot be put on these things.
Sympo wrote:"Capitalism is not interesting except for the category of the propertyless working class who could realise socialism."What does this mean?There's nothing special or partcularly progressive about capitalism, except the working class itself.
Sympo wrote:"Arguably, it was the discovery of the Americas, and the huge surpluses of gold and people that lead to capitalism, not feualism itself (although we can look at the years preceeding the Black Death for a former occasion that feudalism nearly burst its bounds."What you've written here appears to me as a rejection of the idea that there exists a law that says that less developed societies eventually turn into more developed ones. Would that be contrary to historical materialism?No, not really: each society develops in it's own circumstances, there is no abstract law of development that says any given society must turn into a specific otehr society, but that each society has developed from the one before it it, and it will change, given its specific circumstances into somethign else, especially if we consciously guide it.
Sympo wrote:"That is a good question, i'd say yes, that antagonism is inherently unstable, and so eventually it must lead to a crisis and dramatic change: that change is not teleological leading from one thing to the next, and i can swing back and forth many times, per my black death example above, feualism re-asserted itself very strongly after that."But we can see in modern history that there is class conflict, and then nothing happens. The inherent conflict remains yet the system remains aswell.I kind of see it as a matador and a bull for the moment. The bull might kill the matador eventually in a bullfighting session but it is not certain.Thisngs do channge, though thre is a lot of ideology goes into pretending nothing has changed, governments in particular will try never to be seen to have backed down, so the ruling class generally: compared to 1914, the world is a very different place, the raw stuff of capitalism remains, that's true, but there is widespread cronyism and corruption added to that now. The state has become more and more essential to capitalism, etc.
robbo203 wrote:LBird wrote:I'll try once more with you, robbo, but since I've said these things before, I think that you already know what you're about to read. But, there might be others who actually do want to see workers' democracy.Let’s go through these points one by one again, LBird, since all too predictably you have completely evaded them in the deluded belief that you have somehow answered them. Point number ONE. I asked you what was the point a universal vote on the Truth of some scientifc theory. “How is it going to make any difference if you support a theory and it gets voted down by a majority? Does that mean you must henceforth abandon the theory?” To which you answered as follows
LBird wrote:Because we know from the actually history of science (not the myth of 'science' put about by bourgeois scientists, anti-democrats all) that science by its social theory and practice can produce ideas and policies which are dangerous to the majority. For example, eugenics. This was a socio-historical product of science, and had the status of a 'scientific fact', and produced 'official policies' which led to the sterilisation of those deemed by the elite to be 'inferior'. Clearly, it would have made a difference if this 'theory' had been voted down by a majority, if it had been produced in a society where the social activity of science was under democratic control. So, yes, those 'eugenicist' scientists in a society of that sort would be forced to abandon the theory. They would be prevented from advocating the sterilisation of humans.Firstly, do I really need to state the obvious – that you don’t force 'eugenicist' scientists to “abandon the theory” by preventing them from advocating the sterilisation of humans. These are two quite different things. It was quite possible for them to continue believing in the theory even if they are prevented by your thought police from advocating it. Unlike you, I am democrat. I take the view that the most effective way to dispel and disarm a repugnant idea is not by driving it underground but by confronting it and defeating it through rational argument. Repugnant ideas flourish because of the conditions that allow them to flourish, exist. Unless you remove those conditions, those ideas will continue to flourish. Those conditions include the lack of opportunities to question received wisdom or the established Truth (which is precisely the kind of social fascism you are advocating). I note that you automatically assume workers will vote against eugenics theory but what happens if they don’t? What would you do then? You would be forced by the logic of your own argument to advocate or at any rate, condone, eugenics Secondly, you completely ignore my all -important point that democracy is about practical matters, it is not about the truth status of scientific ideas, meaning it is pointless voting about on whether such ideas are “true” or not. If the proposal was made that human beings should be forcibly sterilised as a policy decision then, yes, of course this should be opposed by a democratic vote precisely because this is a practical matter. I repeat democracy is about practical matters that have a practical effect on us Thirdly, though you give the example of eugenics theory to support your argument on the grounds that it could lead to socially undesirable consequences, there are hundreds of thousands of other scientific theories which according to you all without exception need to be voted upon by the entire world population but which theories have no discernible socially adverse consequences whichever way the vote went. To give the example I used – what possible socially adverse consequences could arise from a vote on a new scientific theory on the asexual reproduction of tape worms which you expect the world population to participate in? Point number TWO. You state this in opposition to my point that the science as a self-critical enterprise and that what you are advocating substitutes for science a kind of quasi-religious authority
LBird wrote:This is a repetition of the bourgeois myth about their 'science', that it is a 'self-critical enterprise'. It is often not 'self-critical' whatsoever, and almost everyday in the newspapers we can read accounts of 'scientists' ignoring evidence, manufacturing evidence, and suppressing evidence that clashes with their 'theory'. And even where there is 'criticism', criticism is always from the perspective of a 'theory', and so their so-called 'criticism' never criticises their social power as 'scientists'. Bourgeois scientists never accept the need for democratic controls on their socio-political activities. All science involves power. .It is remarkable LBird that you cannot see just how similar you are to the very “bourgeoisie” you criticise. You witter on about the bourgeois myth about their 'science' being a 'self-critical enterprise' and how they go about “suppressing evidence that clashes with their 'theory'”. But what are you advocating? The truth is you are advocating the very same thing! You admit it yourself! You are saying that when a theory gets voted down by the people, proponents of the theory will not be allowed to continue advocating it or present evidence in support of it because it conflicts with the Truth as established by a democratic vote Point number THREE. You completely misrepresent my view on the role of science and democracy when you argue, thus
LBird wrote:robbo gives his game away, here, because I always argue for democratic authory, and robbo, because he is an individualist and thinks 'elite scientists' should simply be trusted, wants any democratic political interference to be deemed 'quasi religious'. Of course, robbo is hiding the fact that there is a quasi religious authority in science today – the 'elite scientists' themselves. They are the modern priests, conducting a religious order, separated and hidden from most of us workers.Firstly, I feel I need to repeat once again the point that the role of democracy has to do with the practical affairs of society not with with the Truth status of scientific theories. My point is that there is simply no point in voting on the truth of such theories. To do so is indeed a quasi religious attitude to science Secondly, not once did I ever suggest that scientists “should simply be trusted”. Of course, it is desirable for there to be a two channel of communication between scientists and laypersons. I am opposed to an elitist views of science that treats scientists as if they were some kind of anointed priesthood. However, let’s be clear about this. No one person including even the most gifted scientist on the planet can ever know more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge. My view of science in socialist society is that individuals should be completely free to pursue whatever line of scientific enquiry that might interest them. There should be no barriers placed in the way of this happening which is why I opposed to an elitist model of science which serves precisely to enforced such barriers. At the same time I recognise that there will be such a thing as a social division of labour in socialism. Some people will inevitably be more accomplished in some things than others in such a society and it is stupid to deny this. In your fantasy world, there will be no such differences. Everyone will be exactly the same in ability and aptitude and we will all know evertthing there is to know about everything so as to vote comfortably on the thousands of new scientific theories that come into circulation each and every day. In your fantasy world, we will spending all our time voting on each and every one of these new theories although sadly even we will not have time enough to vote on even a tiny fraction of them Point number FOUR. You bring up the thorny question of “materialism”
LBird wrote:I've always argued that Marx was correct on this point. We should 'doubt everything' including supposed 'objective science'. robbo pretends to agree with Marx, but when robbo is asked should the nature of the sun be put to a vote, he denies this power to the majority, and insists that an elite of 'materialists', which includes robbo, already know what the sun is, and that the majority can't know this, because otherwise robbo would have no problem with a vote.Marx claims that we create our object. I agree with Marx, but the materialists, like robbo, don't. The materialists claim that we don't create matter, whereas Marxists claim that 'matter' has a history, and we can study when it originated, and why, and how it has changed, by looking at the various modes of production within which the social product of 'matter' has been socially produced.Firstly, what is this “power” that LBird refers that is being mysteriously denied to the majority by them not being able to vote on the question of what is the nature of the sun? LBird doesn’t say. He doesn’t say because he can’t say, because quite simply he seems to be completely clueless about what he is talking about. Words just gush out of him mindlessly in some unstoppable stream of gibberish. “Power” refers to ability of someone to impose their wishes on someone else against their will. But how is not feeling it necessary to vote on the nature of the sun an exercise in “power”. This is just so daft. What I am saying is that if you want to believe the sun is one thing and I think it is something else then go ahead and be my guest. I am not trying to impose my interpretation on you. I can’t anyway and that surely is the point. Power has to do with practical matters, not the truth of a scientific theory Secondly, Marx did not say “we create our object” e.g. the sun. Once again this is a really stupid argument LBird is presenting because he is trying to put it in a form that appears literal while pretending to mean something else The sun is billions of years old and homo sapiens is only – what one hundred thousand years old or so – so we cannot have literally created the sun. Now LBird knows very well that this is the case but likes to play word games. If he had said “we create the IDEA or interpretation of the object” I would have little or no difficulty in agreeing with him – and he is lying through his teeth if he thinks I believe our interpretation of the world around is not socially produced – but it seems he is once again just intent on drawing out this whole sterile argument about materialism for the sake of it Point number FIVE. LBird contends
LBird wrote:robbo is an anti-democrat, and an individualist, so robbo can see no good reason for democracy in science. robbo trusts an elite, especially the ultimate elite for individualists, their biological senses. robbo doesn't agree that our knowledge of everything, including the sun, is a socio-historical product, and so we can change it. Marxists argue that those changes must be controlled by society, by democratic methods. robbo wishes to determine what the sun is, by looking at it, by feeling heat upon the skin. This is the bourgeois method, of individual biological sensation. It is not a suitable method for democratic socialism, and its aim to democratically control all social production.Firstly if I am an individualist ( I still don’t think LBird knows what this means and is confusing “individualism” with “individuality”) then so is Marx and both of us are vehemently opposed to LBird’s totalitarian view of society which stems from his core Leninist ideology and his endorsement of society wide central planning. Actually if anything Marx was even more of individualist than I am in LBird’s sense of the word . For example in the German Ideology we find him saying: “Communists do not preach morality at all…They do not put to people the moral demand: love one another, do not be egoist etc; on the contrary, they are very well aware that egoism, just as much as self-sacrifice, is in definite circumstances a necessary form of the self-assertion of individuals. Hence, the communists by no means want…to do away with the "private individual" for the sake of the "general", “self-sacrificing man”. I would never go that far since I believe the case for socialism is both a moral one and one based on self interests”. I would however endorse Marx when he say “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” But LBird would oppose Marx on this because he would consider this statement of Marx’s to be an expression of “individualism” Secondly, LBird declares that I am an “antidemocratic”. This demonstrates that LBird is willing to stoop to outright dishonesty to score a cheap point. I have made it perfectly clear that I fully support the concept of democratic decision making in socialism but where it is needed – in the practical affairs of society – and not here it is not needed such as in the determination of the truth of scientific theories. Democracy therefore has clearly defined limits and I advocate democracy up those limits. LBird does not. Local forms of democracy will be banned or prohibited in LBird’s totalitarian society which recognises only one single decision-making body – namely the entire global population deciding in concert. Since this is a totally impossible then, in de facto terms. what this means is LBird is calling for is a form of extreme fascism in which all power perforce will be concentrated in the hands of a tiny few and against which no countervailing powers must ever be allowed to emerge
Will I get a response from LBird to these detailed criticisms of his ideas which I took the time and trouble to write up? Nope, it seems not. It seems there is indeed a predictable pattern – as Tim pointed out – to LBirds involvement in this forum which demonstrates his contempt for democratic debate. As soon as the heat in the kichen gets too much he escapes, leaving a trail of unaswered questions in his wake, only to intrude on some other hapless thread a few days later, repeating the same old mantras as before and when challenged once again, repeating the same old lame excuse as before that "you will have to read what I wrote elsewhere". In this way he immunises himself against all criticism – by a calculated tactic of evasion and deceit Tim was quite right to point all this out and it really begs the question as to whether there is any point in engaging with this individual at all
LBird wrote:jondwhite wrote:Quote:An epic story of courage, genius and terrible folly, this is the first history of how the Soviet Union's scientists became both the glory and the laughing stock of the intellectual world.Simon Ings weaves together what happened when a handful of impoverished and underemployed graduates, professors and entrepreneurs, collectors and charlatans, bound themselves to a failing government to create a world superpower. And he shows how Stalin's obsessions derailed a great experiment in 'rational government'.jdw, does this book address the issue of democracy in science, and how the Stalinists denied it (as they did in the polity), or is it the usual bourgeois propaganda about 'Socialism = Stalinism'?If it does the former, I'll get a copy.
I don't know. I'm afraid it is still on my books to read list. The last topic I started about it here got no replies. There are other books I found by googling science and democracy including one from MIT.
jondwhite wrote:LBird wrote:jondwhite wrote:Quote:An epic story of courage, genius and terrible folly, this is the first history of how the Soviet Union's scientists became both the glory and the laughing stock of the intellectual world.Simon Ings weaves together what happened when a handful of impoverished and underemployed graduates, professors and entrepreneurs, collectors and charlatans, bound themselves to a failing government to create a world superpower. And he shows how Stalin's obsessions derailed a great experiment in 'rational government'.jdw, does this book address the issue of democracy in science, and how the Stalinists denied it (as they did in the polity), or is it the usual bourgeois propaganda about 'Socialism = Stalinism'?If it does the former, I'll get a copy.
I don't know. I'm afraid it is still on my books to read list. The last topic I started about it here got no replies. There are other books I found by googling science and democracy including one from MIT.
Thanks, jdw. I found this:https://www.amazon.com/Science-Democracy-Expertise-Institutions-Representation/dp/0262513048I've had a brief look at the introduction online, but it seems to be the usual regurgitation of 'materialism', sadly.I'm yet to find a decent book on science that addresses communism, democracy, Marx, and his social productionism, in a coherent way. It's a bit sad that, 130 years after Marx's death, this hasn't been done. It's my opinion that 'science' is one of the key arenas that workers have to seek to understand, along with individualism and markets. I see those three areas as the tripod of ideology that supports capitalism.
LBird wrote:. It's my opinion that 'science' is one of the key arenas that workers have to seek to understand, along with individualism and markets. I see those three areas as the tripod of ideology that supports capitalism.I presume that means LBird would oppose Marx who would qualify as an " individualist" in his terms for writing things like this : “Communists do not preach morality at all…They do not put to people the moral demand: love one another, do not be egoist etc; on the contrary, they are very well aware that egoism, just as much as self-sacrifice, is in definite circumstances a necessary form of the self-assertion of individuals. Hence, the communists by no means want…to do away with the "private individual" for the sake of the "general", “self-sacrificing man”. and this "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” Not that I expect an answer from LBird. He doesnt answer questions that refute his arguments
The bottom line, robbo, is how one chooses to understand what Marx's whole body of work was about.For you, because you are an individualist, you argue that Marx was talking about 'individuals'.For me, because I'm a Democratic Communist interested in 'social production' and its history, I argue that Marx was talking about, not 'individuals', but 'social individuals', their socio-historic production, and their attempts to build for Democratic Communism.This is a choice for workers to make. They can either choose your political interpretation of Marx, or my political interpretation of Marx.You have an ideology; I have an ideology. Workers, now, have an ideology. It's up to them to decide which ideology is best suited to their needs, interests and purposes.One clear difference between us, though, that all workers should take note of: I'm open about my ideological beliefs, whereas you try to hide yours. If workers choose to 'remain non-ideological', then they'll probably stick with what they have now.
LBird wrote:The bottom line, robbo, is how one chooses to understand what Marx's whole body of work was about.Why don't you quote Marx to backup your assertions on 'what Marx's whole body of work was a about' as we 'religious materialists' do? You will not answer, so I will: It is because your argument has nothing to do with Marx. Perhaps you sport a similar beard(which would explain a lot) but you do not hold the same ideas.
Young Master Smeet wrote:"Class consciousness has developed"Has it though? In what way?"For example, worker's unions drove forward the existence of the wage relation, using market forces to destroy the restrictive feudal practices of bonded labour"What do you mean with "wage relation"?"(…)when political power is frustrated, we will have to overturn the system."What happens if we don't?"There's nothing special or partcularly progressive about capitalism, except the working class itself."I think a system that gives us the chance of establishing socialism is kind of progressive (not saying capitalism is a good system)."(…)compared to 1914, the world is a very different place, the raw stuff of capitalism remains, that's true, but there is widespread cronyism and corruption added to that now. The state has become more and more essential to capitalism, etc."Do you mean to suggest that the longer capitalism remains, the more corrupt and cronyist it becomes?This view would contrast with a common view that, in the beginning of the industrial revolution, things were worse for most people than it is now. Things like healthcare, wages, living conditions etc are alledgedly much better than they were back then. But perhaps this view ignores that a large part of the world have conditions that are much worse than in the USA and Western Europe (for example, India)?I apologize for asking so many questions, but it's an interesting topic
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:The bottom line, robbo, is how one chooses to understand what Marx's whole body of work was about.Why don't you quote Marx to backup your assertions on 'what Marx's whole body of work was a about' as we 'religious materialists' do? You will not answer, so I will: It is because your argument has nothing to do with Marx. Perhaps you sport a similar beard(which would explain a lot) but you do not hold the same ideas.
You're either telling lies now, Vin, or your memory is failing you. I'll accept that it's the latter.For the first few years posting here, I gave detailed references, not just to Marx, but to Engels, and many others, like Dietzgen, Labriola, Untermann, Brzozowski, Bogdanov, Lenin, Lukacs, Korsch, Gramsci, Pannekoek… I could go on, there are many others, from more recently, like Mattick and Dunayevskaya, but I think that list makes my point sufficiently.But, it soon became obvious that the work I was doing 'to back up my assertions' about Marx, were being completely ignored. Posters like you, who don't seem to have read either Marx or Engels, never mind the rest, simply keep saying 'that's not Marx/Engels/etc.', even when I produce their quotes. This claim, here, that I have 'backed up', can be confirmed by anyone reading this, who has a mind to go back to the earlier threads.As I've argued, the real problem is not whether Marx said 'this or that', but how workers should understand what Marx actually said. It's not so obvious, even with his words in front of us. I've argued that we should all be open about the various ideologies that we're all using, to help workers to sort out 'what Marx meant'.I've been open about my Democratic Communism, and my view that Marx was an idealist-materialist, unlike Engels who was an old-fashioned materialist, but none of you will be open about your own beliefs. Of course, I've exposed your beliefs, and they are those of Engels. I've actually given page numbers for your particular beliefs, Vin, but it makes no impression.So, yes, I've deemed youse to be 'Religious Materialists', who are concerned to defend 'matter' and 'ahistoric bourgeois science', but not "workers' democracy" and the 'democratic control of human science'. And I've pointed out that this was exactly what Marx predicted of those who follow 'materialism': they must turn to an 'elite' who can ignore workers and democracy, a bourgeois elite which claims that it alone 'knows matter' and must control 'science'. And I've shown that this political belief in 'materialism' was exactly the one held by Lenin, whose 'elite' was the Cadre Party, which supposedly has this 'special consciousness'.None of your beliefs are of any use to class conscious workers, who wish to build a democratic socialist society.
LBird wrote:You're either telling lies now, Vin, or your memory is failing you. I'll accept that it's the latter.Niether. Just ONE reference where Marx explicitly supports your Idealist-Materialist tosh, just ONE. and I don't mean your 'democratic communist' Idealist interpretation. While I am on, why don't you answer Robbos questions instead of repeating the same old rubbish
LBird wrote:But, it soon became obvious that the work I was doing 'to back up my assertions' about Marx, were being completely ignored. Posters like you, who don't seem to have read either Marx or Engels, never mind the rest, simply keep saying 'that's not Marx/Engels/etc.', even when I produce their quotes. This claim, here, that I have 'backed up', can be confirmed by anyone reading this, who has a mind to go back to the earlier threads.Your living in Cuckoo land. 'Posters like me' Don't you mean every poster? Your the only 'democratic communist' in the village. Get real. Supporting references, please.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.