Science for Communists?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,can human thought make the number of prime non-infinite?  Whether we invented numbers or found them  primes are infinite, irrespective of the wishes or ideas of humans. 

'Human thought' can do anything it wants to, YMS.Whether that 'thought' is useful, though, requires the scientific method of 'theory and practice', but this method does not guarantee an outcome of 'Infinite Truth', as we now know.You stick to 'maths', amd the rest of us will explore the philosophy of science, and its potential for human advancement.

[ALB]

Obviously I was using the word "materialism" in a very general sense to mean nothing more, in the end, than "non-religious" and "non-theistic", not in any particular narrow, technical philosophical sense. Obviously too, Marx (and Engels) were materialists in this sense.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

What? Mach argued for the democratic control of physics? Mach argued for workers voting for 'Truth'?

I wouldn't have thought so. Not sure I do either. Democratic control of scientific research, yes, but settling rival explanations of some phenomenon offered by scientists by a general vote even in socialist/communist society, I don't think so. Certainly not today.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

A discussion of 'capitalism' (and its explanation by us, translating Marx's difficult works) is a long, long, long way down the road, Vin.This is about philosophy of science, for Communists. When we've got that sorted out, it might give us some insights in how to explain Marx's works, which are still opaque to most (including me!), which I think should be the task of class conscious workers, like us, in attempting to explain the world to other workers, a world both physical and social.

More confusionSo I take it you believe that the WSM has it all wrong but you can't explain why until we have a proletarian science?    

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Obviously I was using the word "materialism" in a very general sense to mean nothing more, in the end, than "non-religious" and "non-theistic", not in any particular narrow, technical philosophical sense. Obviously too, Marx (and Engels) were materialists in this sense.

But 'materialists' are idealists and religious! They worship 'nature' (or, 'maths', some of them).I'm not, Marx wasn't, you say you're not, and Engels wavered, as an amateur who didn't grasp the significance of the Theses on Feuerbach (or, more probably, forgot them under the immense pressure of 19th century science).I think it best to clarify what is meant by 'materialism'.Marx meant 'idealism-materialism', and I agree with him. We can't take history out of maths or physics. Humans are at the heart of our understanding of the world. Understanding is social, not individual. Societies change, understanding changes. Maths and physics change.Criticism of the 'existing' is the way forward.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

A discussion of 'capitalism' (and its explanation by us, translating Marx's difficult works) is a long, long, long way down the road, Vin.This is about philosophy of science, for Communists. When we've got that sorted out, it might give us some insights in how to explain Marx's works, which are still opaque to most (including me!), which I think should be the task of class conscious workers, like us, in attempting to explain the world to other workers, a world both physical and social.

More confusionSo I take it you believe that the WSM has it all wrong but you can't explain why until we have a proletarian science?  

I'm afraid you're going to have to stay 'confused', Vin, until you enter the spirit of the discussion.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

What? Mach argued for the democratic control of physics? Mach argued for workers voting for 'Truth'?

I wouldn't have thought so. Not sure I do either. Democratic control of scientific research, yes, but settling rival explanations of some phenomenon offered by scientists by a general vote even in socialist/communist society, I don't think so.

Thanks for your honesty, ALB.So, 'elite experts', rather than democracy, eh?I'd've thought Communism would involve expanding the education of all humans, to allow all to participate in the running of their society, including the generation of its knowledge.But, apparently not.This wouldn't be a 'ruling class' idea about 'the mob being too thick to understand the concerns of their betters', would it?After all, just look around you, at the real world… they're all only interested in food and pleasure…It's a no-brainer… keep their mucky fingers off our pristine knowledge.No, ALB, I'm a Communist. Either workers develop themselves, or Communism doesn't happen. Neither you nor I can do it for them. That's Leninism.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

I've already explained, long and hard, that, like Marx, I'm an 'idealist-materialist'.

Why then did he not refer to himself as such?And why are you the *only* person to describe themselves as such?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

I think it best to clarify what is meant by 'materialism'.

I thought I had but there are of course narrower definitions (which we can discuss, again, if you want). Personally I'm proud to call myself a "materialist", always have been, despite the word's association with one-sided, mechanical materialism. You're one too on this definition.[quote+LBird]But 'materialists' are idealists and religious! They worship 'nature' (or, 'maths', some of them).[/quote]It looks as if you need to define what you mean by "religious". It doesn't seem to be a normal usage.Anyway, for what's it's worth, here's a resolution carried at the 2003 SPGB Conference:

Quote:

That this conference endorses the editorial Committee's reply to a correspondent's letter in the May 2002 Socialist Standard and holds that it is a good brief summing up of the party's position. 'The Socialist Party takes a non-theistic, materialist approach to things, in particular to society and social change. Religious people believe in the existence of at least one supernatural entity that intervenes in nature and human affairs. Socialists hold that we only live once. Religious people believe in some afterlife. Clearly the two are incompatible'.

That's good enough for me as a minimalist position. Maybe for you also? 

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

 I'm afraid you're going to have to stay 'confused', Vin, until you enter the spirit of the discussion.

 LBird has confused the whole socialist movement, lol 

[Anonymous]

Science is part of the means of production and is formed  by the class struggle (I am sure  all 'communists' accept workers have an influence on scientific developement)While some use philosophy as an excuse to do nothing, others will continue to cure disease and avoid disasters , and workers will understand and abolish capitalism.  Unless of course we use philosophy to doubt our every move. This is a mental illness.Boiling bath water will injure my baby and this will occur if I live in slavery, feudalism, capitalism or socialism. It will accur regardless of my ideology.It will still happen during one of Kuhn’s scientific revolutions.It will happen if I use Aristotelian logic , deductive or inductive reasoning,  Hypothetic-deductive method , 19th century positivism, Mathematical positivism, Newtonian physics logical reconstructionism, scientific realism, Popperism, Kuhnism, leninism, Stalinism, botulism, baggism or   shaggism  

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

I've already explained, long and hard, that, like Marx, I'm an 'idealist-materialist'.

Why then did he not refer to himself as such?And why are you the *only* person to describe themselves as such?

We've done this one to death, DJP.You don't agree that Marx was an early 'critical realist'. The term didn't exist then, so he employed 'materialism' with an 'add-on'. Engels and his adherents always drop the 'add-on'.I use 'idealist-materialist' as a helpful shortcut for comrades who are new to these discussions, and can't yet make sense of Marx's Theses on Feuerbach.Put simply, Marx is not a simple 'materialist': he blended both the insights from the materialists and the idealists, into 'theory and practice'. To call Marx a 'materialist' loses his activist, human, theoretical, social, emphasis.You seem to be content to leave Marx's works as misunderstood and unexplained.I wish to encourage comrades to ask questions, and to try to understand Marx.I've gone through this all before, so I can only conclude you're trolling me, when you disingenuously ask, yet again, why he didn't refer to himself as such.You already know my answer to this question. Why keep asking it? If you don't agree, then fine, have done with it, and leave the thread to those who are intrigued by new explanations.Why keep pestering me?

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

You don't agree that Marx was an early 'critical realist'. The term didn't exist then, so he employed 'materialism' with an 'add-on'. Engels and his adherents always drop the 'add-on'.

Actually I think calling Marx a "critical realist" is not an unreasonable way to go.i don't think coining the term "idealism-materialism" is helpful for anyone, yet alone yourself.

LBird wrote:

Put simply, Marx is not a simple 'materialist': he blended both the insights from the materialists and the idealists, into 'theory and practice'. To call Marx a 'materialist' loses his activist, human, theoretical, social, emphasis.

Yes and No. Yes, Marx was not a "crude materialist" but he was still a materialist. But to say that one is a "materialism" does not mean that one is necessarily endorsing "crude materialism"

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Personally I'm proud to call myself a "materialist", always have been, despite the word's association with one-sided, mechanical materialism. You're one too on this definition.

Yes, I agree. But I prefer the term 'realist', simply because it forces the question onto the agenda about Marx's alleged 'materialism'. This ALWAYS defaults to Engels' definition, and then comrades unfortunately return to 'mechanical materialism', but with the qualifier now well hidden.'Historical Materialism' in effect means 'Not Materialism' ('materialism' here in its, as you say, 'one-sided' meaning).

ALB wrote:

It looks as if you need to define what you mean by "religious". It doesn't seem to be a normal usage.

You mean you can't sense the religious fervour of the 'materialists' here, in their defence of their Faith?For them, 'matter' is a no-go zone for most humans, a 'matter' only for the special few, who have a special understanding denied the masses.You yourself seem to see physicists as priests. Who are the laity to question the priesthood?It's the 'scientific' route to Leninism and The Party. 'Matter' replaces 'God'. And cadre replaces priesthood. And laity replaces class.'Democracy' is always an evil to the elite. They'll fight, like vampires fight for blood donorship, to retain elite control.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

You mean you can't sense the religious fervour of the 'materialists' here, in their defence of their Faith?

I can sense some fervour in this discussion but I can't think know why but something about people in glass houses comes to mind.

[Author]

Posts