Roy Bhaskar founder of Critical Realism has died

[DJP]

Roy Bhaskar passed away on 19th Nov. In memory I am posting this sentence which was the winner of the 1996 Philosophy and Literature bad writing contest

Roy Bhaskar wrote:

Indeed dialectical critical realism may be seen under the aspect of Foucauldian strategic reversal — of the unholy trinity of Parmenidean/Platonic/Aristotelean provenance; of the Cartesian-Lockean-Humean-Kantian paradigm, of foundationalisms (in practice, fideistic foundationalisms) and irrationalisms (in practice, capricious exercises of the will-to-power or some other ideologically and/or psycho-somatically buried source) new and old alike; of the primordial failing of western philosophy, ontological monovalence, and its close ally, the epistemic fallacy with its ontic dual; of the analytic problematic laid down by Plato, which Hegel served only to replicate in his actualist monovalent analytic reinstatement in transfigurative reconciling dialectical connection, while in his hubristic claims for absolute idealism he inaugurated the Comtean, Kierkegaardian and Nietzschean eclipses of reason, replicating the fundaments of positivism through its transmutation route to the superidealism of a Baudrillard.

[LBird]

Bhaskar's works are as difficult to read as Marx's, which is why we need to 'translate' them into terms understandable to most workers, and to sort the wheat from the chaff.There is much that is useful in both Marx and Bhaskar, but there is also lots that is either meaningless or simply wrong.I think this work is a task for Communists, who mostly seem to make no effort to encourage and help develop workers about issues that are vital for them to understand, if workers are to democratically control social production across the planet.

[alanjjohnstone]

"Bhaskar's works are as difficult to read as Marx's, which is why we need to 'translate' them into terms understandable to most workers, and to sort the wheat from the chaff. There is much that is useful in both Marx and Bhaskar, but there is also lots that is either meaningless or simply wrong." Never heard of him, myself and if DJP's extrat is anyway reflective of his writing i won't be reading him except through an interpreter.Be interesting to know what you consider meaningless in Marx. I always thought he was very concise with his words. Perhaps they may be meaningless in the context of today (all that anti-Slav sentiment, for instance) but are you saying they were also meaningless in his own time? 

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Be interesting to know what you consider meaningless in Marx. I always thought he was very concise with his words.

Much of what Marx wrote is very verbose and unclear, so unclear as to be meaningless. It's easy to read at least two 'meanings' into his words, and often more.For example, if any comrade can sum up this passage, I'd be very obliged. I admit I can't grasp what his central thrust is.

Marx, Grundrisse, pp. 100-2, wrote:

(3) The Method of Political EconomyWhen we consider a given country politico-economically, we begin with its population, its distribution among classes, town, country, the coast, the different branches of production, export and import, annual production and consumption, commodity prices etc.It seems to be correct to begin with the real and the concrete, with the real precondition, thus to begin, in economics, with e.g. the population, which is the foundation and the subject of the entire social act of production. However, on closer examination this proves false. The population is an abstraction if I leave out, for example, the classes of which it is composed. These classes in turn are an empty phrase if I am not familiar with the elements on which they rest. E.g. wage labour, capital, etc. These latter in turn presuppose exchange, division of labour, prices, etc. For example, capital is nothing without wage labour, without value, money, price etc. Thus, if I were to begin with the population, this would be a chaotic conception [Vorstellung] of the whole, and I would then, by means of further determination, move analytically towards ever more simple concepts [Begriff], from the imagined concrete towards ever thinner abstractions until I had arrived at the simplest determinations. From there the journey would have to be retraced until I had finally arrived at the population again, but this time not as the chaotic conception of a whole, but as a rich totality of many determinations and relations. The former is the path historically followed by economics at the time of its origins. The economists of the seventeenth century, e.g., always begin with the living whole, with population, nation, state, several states, etc.; but they always conclude by discovering through analysis a small number of determinant, abstract, general relations such as division of labour, money, value, etc. As soon as these individual moments had been more or less firmly established and abstracted, there began the economic systems, which ascended from the simple relations, such as labour, division of labour, need, exchange value, to the level of the state, exchange between nations and the world market. The latter is obviously the scientifically correct method. The concrete is concrete because it is the concentration of many determinations, hence unity of the diverse. It appears in the process of thinking, therefore, as a process of concentration, as a result, not as a point of departure, even though it is the point of departure in reality and hence also the point of departure for observation [Anschauung] and conception. Along the first path the full conception was evaporated to yield an abstract determination; along the second, the abstract determinations lead towards a reproduction of the concrete by way of thought. In this way Hegel fell into the illusion of conceiving the real as the product of thought concentrating itself, probing its own depths, and unfolding itself out of itself, by itself, whereas the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete is only the way in which thought appropriates the concrete, reproduces it as the concrete in the mind. But this is by no means the process by which the concrete itself comes into being. For example, the simplest economic category, say e.g. exchange value, presupposes population, moreover a population producing in specific relations; as well as a certain kind of family, or commune, or state, etc. It can never exist other than as an abstract, one-sided relation within an already given, concrete, living whole. As a category, by contrast, exchange value leads an antediluvian existence. Therefore, to the kind of consciousness – and this is characteristic of the philosophical consciousness – for which conceptual thinking is the real human being, and for which the conceptual world as such is thus the only reality, the movement of the categories appears as the real act of production – which only, unfortunately, receives a jolt from the outside – whose product is the world; and – but this is again a tautology – this is correct in so far as the concrete totality is a totality of thoughts, concrete in thought, in fact a product of thinking and comprehending; but not in any way a product of the concept which thinks and generates itself outside or above observation and conception; a product, rather, of the working-up of observation and conception into concepts. The totality as it appears in the head, as a totality of thoughts, is a product of a thinking head, which appropriates the world in the only way it can, a way different from the artistic, religious, practical and mental appropriation of this world. The real subject retains its autonomous existence outside the head just as before; namely as long as the head’s conduct is merely speculative, merely theoretical. Hence, in the theoretical method, too, the subject, society, must always be kept in mind as the presupposition.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htmAs many critics have pointed out, Bhaskar is at least as bad, if not worse.You'd think, sometimes, that Communists don't actually want to explain the world to workers.Perhaps Pareto summed up the problem best:"Marx's words are like bats; one can see in them both birds and mice".https://www.nyu.edu/projects/ollman/docs/dd_ch00_content.php

[alanjjohnstone]

But wasn't Grundisse simply his private notes and rough drafts, not for publication but for his own use and own aide memory and not intended to be read by others. So surely we cannot apply the same rules on clarity. He knew what he meant when he wrote it and when he includedbits of it in what he intended to be his public works, he re-wrote it re-worded it and re-phrased it to make the meaning clear. He didn't expect it to be published several decades after his death for all and sundry to study like the Hebrew scholars of the Talmud and unlike German Ideology which was meant for publication but never saw the light of day during his lfetime.  

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

But wasn't Grundisse simply his private notes and rough drafts, not for publication but for his own use and own aide memory and not intended to be read by others. So surely we cannot apply the same rules on clarity. He knew what he meant when he wrote it and when he includedbits of it in what he intended to be his public works, he re-wrote it re-worded it and re-phrased it to make the meaning clear. He didn't expect it to be published several decades after his death for all and sundry to study like the Hebrew scholars of the Talmud and unlike German Ideology which was meant for publication but never saw the light of day during his lfetime.

If you can point to any clearer version of what Charlie meant by 'the method of political economy', whether published in his lifetime or not, I'll be keen to read it, alan! Let's face it, his main published work, the central effort of his life, Capital, contains the three opening chapters which are no more use to workers than the stuff from the Grundrisse.Anyone who wishes to understand Marx's works for themselves (as opposed to just accepting what the 'priests' tell us), has to interpret his words, simply because they are not clear. This is nothing to do with 'private notes and rough drafts', but the context in which he was writing and who he was writing for (academics familiar with German philosophy, especially Kant and Hegel), which means that his best efforts are opaque to us.Funnily enough, the 'Hebrew Talmudic' method is the one followed most people on this site, from what I can tell. And many have admitted that they haven't actually read either Marx or Engels for themselves, but just periodically dip into the 'Talmudic' interpretations, because it is so much easier.For myself, I think the 'Marxian Critical' method is far better, but that means we have to question, rather than simply read, his works, private, rough or published.The same applies to Bhaskar, who, like Marx, stimulates one's thinking, if only to provide food for critical thought.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Capital, contains the three opening chapters which are no more use to workers than the stuff from the Grundrisse.

Well these workers seem to have understood and found a use for it…https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/classstruggle/conversations/messages/6

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Capital, contains the three opening chapters which are no more use to workers than the stuff from the Grundrisse.

Well these workers seem to have understood and found a use for it…https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/classstruggle/conversations/messages/6

[my bold]From January 2002, eh?Seems surprising that in over twelve years 'these workers' haven't bothered to explain it clearly to all the other workers, like me, who have constantly asked various parties face-to-face or on socialist internet sites, to explain 'value'.The problem is, 'these workers' want to explain it in Marx's terms, rather than in terms suitable for today's workers. Any explanation of 'value' must start from non-economic explanations, just as any teacher knows that one should introduce a difficult subject by explanations rooted in other subjects, with which the students are already familiar.Whenever I've asked socialists to do this, they haven't been able to. And so, I drew the conclusion, a long time ago, that they can't explain, neither to me nor any other workers.That's why I've taken on this task myself, and can explain 'value' is terms familiar to workers, like using 'cars', 'castles', 'watches', so that they can get a hook into Marx's value, prior to reading Capital.But… whenever this didactic method is itself explained, so that all socialists can employ it to make Marx's works more accessible to all workers, 'these workers' throw up their hands in exasperation, because if other workers can get up to speed in a few weeks, about which subject 'these workers' took years to achieve, then 'these workers' lose their significance as 'specialists' who 'understand the texts', which are impenetrable to the ordinary worker.It might have taken me years to do this, but I'm happy to reduce this task to months or weeks, because I put class before party. That's why I'm a democrat, because I believe that ordinary workers can understand 'value' and 'epistemology' and that it is the task of socialists to provide the means of workers' self-education.I know you don't agree with me, DJP. I can't even mention the term for this method to you on this thread now, because you take refuge in calling me a 'troll'.Good luck with 'these workers', and you can happily forget all the rest.

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

I've taken on this task myself, and can explain 'value' is terms familiar to workers, like using 'cars', 'castles', 'watches', so that they can get a hook into Marx's value,

 Any chance you have something on it that can go online. The blog could use some simplification of Marxian theory. I'll of course credit you 

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

I've taken on this task myself, and can explain 'value' is terms familiar to workers, like using 'cars', 'castles', 'watches', so that they can get a hook into Marx's value,

 Any chance you have something on it that can go online. The blog could use some simplification of Marxian theory. I'll of course credit you 

Two points, alan.1. I do not want any credit. I can't personally visit every worker on the planet, to fill in the gaps and answer questions.2. I've already tried, several times on several sites, to build something suitable for publication online, with no success whatsoever.I regard the task of 'simplification of Marxian theory' as a social task, for which no individuals should be given any credit whatsoever, because it should be the task of anonymous Socialists/Communists to provide this help for all workers.The only way to do this is to subject any offered explanations to social criticism and voting, so that the very best possible explanation is arrived at, by a democratic method.I've tried to institute this method, but have only been met with resistance. I'm still not sure why this resistance exists, but it clearly does. I was naive enough, at first, to think that lots of comrades would enthusiastically join in with this irreplacable social task, to both develop comrades now, and then other workers when the task is in suitable shape for wider comprehension. For a time, I was shocked at the continuous resistance to 'simplifying Marxian theory', but not any longer.I've drawn the conclusion that, for many, Marx-Engels's works are religious texts, and 'these workers' are outraged at a worker having the temerity to criticise, judge, translate, amend and even reject some parts, of the Holy Texts.I should make it clear that this conclusion is not aimed simply at the SPGB, because I think it is a widespread attitude amongst those who would have no part in workers controlling production using democratic methods, no matter what they appear to profess by being 'socialists'.At various times, I've suggested that workers should democratically control arms, science, maths, truth, matter, etc., but have always been met with shock and outrage at such a stupid suggestion.Of course, those who disagree with me can never say who, in their opinion, should control arms, science, maths, truth ,matter, etc. I think that they're hiding something, and that is either an elitism which later emerges in a form of Leninism, or an individualism that emerges as a form of Anarchism.So, to sum up, there has to be a collective effort by socialists to make Marx accessible to all workers, but I'm coming to the conclusion that socialists are a blockage, rather than a means.That thesis would certainly explain why, 130 years after Marx's death, most workers know nothing whatsoever about his ideas. Of course, the 'socialists' blame the workers…

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

From January 2002, eh?

Well I'm sure that's not the last words they uttered. But read the article and click on the link below, what exactly is it about them that you think that "workers" can't understand?http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/video/marx-and-economics

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

From January 2002, eh?

Well I'm sure that's not the last words they uttered. But read the article and click on the link below, what exactly is it about them that you think that "workers" can't understand?http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/video/marx-and-economics

I've had a listen to the opening minutes of the talk, but I haven't got the time to sit through what seems to be a fairly standard account of a history of political economy, of which I'm sure I'd agree with probably 99% of it.What caught my attention, though, was this statement:

Darren, at 5:12-5:35, wrote:

…theorists sought to build a theory based more closely on the mathematical models of the physical sciences and sought to downplay the importance of the social and historical factors…

Although this was made in the context of a discussion of the development of neo-classical economics, you don't seem to realise that exactly the same criticism can be made of 'the physical sciences' themselves, that they 'downplay the importance of the social and historical factors'.The key problem is not simply that a return to political economy which does not downplay the importance of the social and historical factors would solve the issue, but that the 'physical sciences' (including physics) can't be simply based upon 'mathematical models', either.That is, the solution is that 'physics' itself becomes more like 'political economy'.Our concepts of the 'material' (or, 'matter') are also based upon 'social and historical factors'. Inescapably intertwined in the 'material' for any society is the 'ideal'. It's a 19th century myth that 'matter' simply tells us 'what it is', and that 'knowledge' of this 'material' is, once 'discovered', a final 'Truth'. This model holds that 'matter' is simply reflected in our minds, and that a individual has access to this 'copy knowledge' through their own senses. That is, one can know a rock simply by picking it up and looking at it.The alternative is to recognise that all 'knowledge' is socially and historically produced, and is not a 'copy' of 'matter'. All human knowledge contains both ideas and material, and social and historical factors influence how an individual 'understands' the 'rock in their hands'.The upshot of this is that, for a Communist society based upon democratic controls of production, that 'what matter is' has to be subject to a democratic vote. It is not in the power of an individual to tell themselves what 'material' things are. That is a continuation of the bourgeois myth of the commodity, that any individual can simply judge for themselves 'what it's worth', because 'value' is a psychological category and open to the sensual judgement of its prospective possessor.'Value', just like 'the material', is a socially-created category, and to understand either requires a social theory.That is, human ideas.It is not 'idealism' to suggest that social ideas are employed to determine 'what is'. Theory and practice are as important in physics as in political economy.Your comments against 'mathematical models' in political economy are as valid in physics, too. Humans can't 'downplay the importance of the social and historical factors' in either.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

The key problem is not simply that a return to political economy which does not downplay the importance of the social and historical factors would solve the issue, but that the 'physical sciences' (including physics) can't be simply based upon 'mathematical models', either.

This might be the time and place for you to explain Bhaskar's concept of "non-physical causal powers" that you avoided before which I had assumed perhaps wrongly (it's difficult to fathom what he's on about) implied a model of reality that was akin to mathematical ones, i.e some sort of non-physical structure.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

This might be the time and place for you to explain Bhaskar's concept of "non-physical causal powers" that you avoided before…

I haven't 'avoided before', and neither has Marx. You've just been ignoring both what I've previously said, and what's in front of your face in Capital, for ideological reasons, I presume, connected to your defence of 'materialism'.'Value' is a 'non-physical causal power'.

Marx, Capital, wrote:

The value of commodities is the very opposite of the coarse materiality of their substance, not an atom of matter enters into its composition.

[my bold]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htmValue causes humans to act in predictable ways, both capitalists and workers, but it is 'non-physical', according to Marx.Funnily enough, ALB, this statement of Marx's was one of the drivers behind my desire to read Bhaskar, amongst others.And there, too, we have yet another 'non-physical causal power': the statement above by Marx.His idea had the causal power to direct my research practice.

[ALB]

You are playing Humpty Dumpty again and making words mean what you say they mean. The trite observation that people are influenced to act by ideas is not what Bhaskar and his philosophy mean by "non-physical causal powers" and, as a "critical realist" yourself, you must know it.  No doubt too, you must take up some position in this debate about amongst your fellow "critical realists" about the nature of these mysterious "causal powers":

Quote:

A third issue is the ontological status of powers. Harré and Madden – and, following them, Nancy Cartwright – argued that it is things that exist, not free-floating powers. Harré and Madden used the term ‘powerful particular’. Cartwright, in turn, refers to ‘capacities’ rather than to powers or dispositions because, she says, it is harder to forget that capacities are always the capacities of something. Bhaskar, by contrast, advanced the view in RTS that the most basic things may not be things at all, but just powers tout court.

[Author]

Posts