Science for Communists?

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

As I keep saying, for the worker confused by these issues, they simply have to ask 'Do you agree with democratic controls on all of your activities? The academic, elite scientist will answer 'No!', and the cadre, elite Leninist will answer 'No!'. This is actually the answer on this thread from a number of posters, who are members of the SPGB: 'No to workers' democracy in science'.

Not quite true is it? The debate is on what you consider to be 'democracy in science' not that there will be no democracy in science.  And your democracy in science derives from your theory and practice hypothesis, which not many agree with.

[twc]

Re:  #830 and #831It was Marx—not Engels—who criticizes Feuerbach for failing to conceive “human practice itself as objective practice”¹  and “sensuousness as practical, human-sensuous activity”.² Nobody respects your duplicitous ploy of wriggling out of a fix, by swapping Engels—universally detested scapegoat for the Leninist Left’s miserable failings—in place of Marx.Marx has just said that social life depends on our universal apprehension of sensuous and practical objectivity.³ You, an anti-objective social constructionist, flatly deny Marx—not Engels.If you aren’t inclined to critique my exposure of the hitherto-unnoticed⁴  “objectivity-of-social-practice” thread running through Marx’s—not Engels’s—Theses on Feuerbach, then you might favour us by solving a much simpler problem that we ordinary folks can only accomplish daily by taking our apprehension of sensuous and practical activity as objective:Unlike the rest of us, you do not take our sensuously perceived shoes and shoelaces as objective sensuousness.Unlike the rest of us, you do not take our shoelace-tying practice as objective practice.How then, unlike the rest of us, do you—an anti-objective social constructionist—manage to anti-objectively tie anti-objective shoelaces on anti-objective shoes by anti-objective practice, unless your anti-objective conceptions of anti-shoes, anti-shoelaces, anti-shoelace-tying, and the anti-world in which this anti-objective mystery is anti-objectively acted out are actually objective in the first place—and are all actually conceived by you to be objective?And don’t you ever again presume to respond by playing that dirty switching game on us again.  You know precisely who wrote what.Notes ⁽¹⁾ Thesis I. ⁽²⁾ Thesis V. ⁽³⁾ Whether our comprehension of such objectivity is adequate to it is the subject of Thesis II. ⁽⁴⁾ Unnoticed,  because most Marx “scholarship”—whose quality I’ve occasionally exposed here as appalling—has been conducted by Leninist academics who support voluntarism, which is actually ambivalent on objectivity.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

And your democracy in science derives from your theory and practice hypothesis, which not many agree with.

Yeah, just who was the thinker who pushed that 'theory and practice hypothesis, which not many [here] agree with'?

[LBird]

The usual Stalinist approach, eh, twc? Play the man not the ball. Smear the person's character, rather than answer their questions.'Duplicitous', 'playing a dirty game'… oh dear!Do you froth at the mouth, too, when compiling your diatribes against me?I'm so confident of my arguments that I give links to people who disagree with me, to encourage wider reading, whereas you never engage in the pros and cons of positions, but just fulminate at my 'devious' character.You would do well to read what I actually write, twc, like some comrades obviously do.And wipe your mouth.Moderator1 2nd Warning:  7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

If you aren’t inclined to critique my exposure of the hitherto-unnoticed⁴  “objectivity-of-social-practice” thread running through Marx’s—not Engels’s—Theses on Feuerbach, then you might favour us by solving a much simpler problem that we ordinary folks can only accomplish daily by taking our apprehension of sensuous and practical activity as objective:Unlike the rest of us, you do not take our sensuously perceived shoes and shoelaces as objective sensuousness.Unlike the rest of us, you do not take our shoelace-tying practice as objective practice.How then, unlike the rest of us, do you—an anti-objective social constructionist—manage to anti-objectively tie anti-objective shoelaces on anti-objective shoes by anti-objective practice, unless your anti-objective conceptions of anti-shoes, anti-shoelaces, anti-shoelace-tying, and the anti-world in which this anti-objective mystery is anti-objectively acted out are actually objective in the first place—and are all actually conceived by you to be objective?.

This is just 'individualist' nonsense, and nothing whatsoever to do with 'science' and the production of 'knowledge'.According to this method, 'tying one's shoes' allows both the shoes and laces to tell us what they are called, how to manufacture them, the molecular constituency of them, how to lace our shoes, etc. etc.'Shoes, laces and their tying' are social activities, in their naming, production, learning, and chemistry.Unless you're really saying that a native Australian Aborigine of 5000 years ago would, without a moment's hesitation when presented with 21st century polished leather shoes, know the names of their constituents, be able to knock up a pair, tie them immediately from intuition, and give us a breakdown of their molecular form…Do us a favour, twc… go and read some Marx and Engels. Even Fred would have no time for your asocial, ahistoric, bourgeois individualism of 'biological senses'.

[Anonymous]

twc wrote:

Re:  #830 and #831It was Marx—not Engels—who criticizes Feuerbach for failing to conceive “human practice itself as objective practice”¹  and “sensuousness as practical, human-sensuous activity”.² Nobody respects your duplicitous ploy of wriggling out of a fix, by swapping Engels—universally detested scapegoat for the Leninist Left’s miserable failings—in place of Marx.Marx has just said that social life depends on our universal apprehension of sensuous and practical objectivity.³ You, an anti-objective social constructionist, flatly deny Marx—not Engels.If you aren’t inclined to critique my exposure of the hitherto-unnoticed⁴  “objectivity-of-social-practice” thread running through Marx’s—not Engels’s—Theses on Feuerbach, then you might favour us by solving a much simpler problem that we ordinary folks can only accomplish daily by taking our apprehension of sensuous and practical activity as objective:Unlike the rest of us, you do not take our sensuously perceived shoes and shoelaces as objective sensuousness.Unlike the rest of us, you do not take our shoelace-tying practice as objective practice.How then, unlike the rest of us, do you—an anti-objective social constructionist—manage to anti-objectively tie anti-objective shoelaces on anti-objective shoes by anti-objective practice, unless your anti-objective conceptions of anti-shoes, anti-shoelaces, anti-shoelace-tying, and the anti-world in which this anti-objective mystery is anti-objectively acted out are actually objective in the first place—and are all actually conceived by you to be objective?And don’t you ever again presume to respond by playing that dirty switching game on us again.  You know precisely who wrote what.Notes ⁽¹⁾ Thesis I. ⁽²⁾ Thesis V. ⁽³⁾ Whether our comprehension of such objectivity is adequate to it is the subject of Thesis II. ⁽⁴⁾ Unnoticed,  because most Marx “scholarship”—whose quality I’ve occasionally exposed here as appalling—has been conducted by Leninist academics who support voluntarism, which is actually ambivalent on objectivity.

The left failed, and continue failing, and they will always fail, because they have distorted the most basic principles of socialism, it is not because they are Engelsian, philosophy is not the guide of our society, it is economic I have my own personal critiques against Engels, but I do not think that the Leninists are Engelsian, they are Lasallean. The Leninist used phraseology of Marx and Engels, but their practice says something different. The distortions created within the Second International can not be blamed on Engels eitherLenin tried to blame the problems of the Second International on Kaustky, but when Karl Kaustky was a real socialist, Lenin was not even a shadow in front of him. He just wanted to defame Kaustky ,in the same way that he tried to defame Martov to take control of the workers movement. Leninism became popular because of the Soviet revolt, and it was Stalin who propagated the so called Marxism-LeninismTo blame the fail of the left on Engels wrong philosophical conceptions, it would be like getting  into agreement with the right wingers and the capitalists who are saying that the failure of the Soviet Union is because they were Marxists, they failed because the followed the economical law of capitalism, and in regard to  economical principles Engels was correct, only Rosa Luxembourg was the one who question him about Capital volume 2, and trying to question him, she failed  more deeper on her own mistakes  http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/tag/ludwig-feuerbach  This is a good review on Marx's concept of human nature and his Thesis on Feuerbach

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

And your democracy in science derives from your theory and practice hypothesis, which not many agree with.

Yeah, just who was the thinker who pushed that 'theory and practice hypothesis, which not many [here] agree with'?

Like I state in the comment quoted its you pushing your own particular theory and practice hypothesis.  In order to bolster your hypothesis you make the claim that Marx puts theory first, then in order to bolster this claim you make a further claim that Marx was in truth an idealist-materialist.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

In order to bolster your hypothesis you make the claim that Marx puts theory first…

I'm not sure where you're going with this, Brian.Don't you agree that 'Marx puts theory first'? I thought that that claim was uncontroversial.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

In order to bolster your hypothesis you make the claim that Marx puts theory first…

I'm not sure where you're going with this, Brian.Don't you agree that 'Marx puts theory first'? I thought that that claim was uncontroversial.

You would think this claim is uncontroversial because you've become myopic to all the arguments put to you regarding materialism versus idealism.  Marx not only turned Hegel the right way up but in doing so also turned Descartes contention "I think, therefore I am" the right way around i.e." I am, therefore I think". This materialistic perspective is then reinforced by Marx with his statement on, "Its not mans ideas which determine his circumstances, but rather his circumstances which determine his ideas."Which when considered together unreservably places matter in its rightful place – ahead of the queue – in terms of ideas springing from the practical observation of matter in motion.  Whether its visible or invisible to the naked eye, or any of the other senses.Just because the term 'Theory and Practice' is in common usage and implies ideas have primacy over matter, in reality – and in practical terms – our work starts from what we observe in our environment, in respect of the current knowledge and understanding we have of the environment in practice.Like I mentioned previously you are searching for the unity of opposites.  And you have yet to convince me that your hypothesis of a unity between idealism and materialism is on sound ground. For instance, I have yet to see any unity between the impossible and the possible.  Any most probably never will.But not being a Leninist I do know that once what was thought impossible becomes possible revolution is on the agenda.  And that's good enough for me.  Of course I agree with you that this scenario on revolution entails socialist thought becoming the dominant form of mindset in respect of the scientific and academic communities. But being dismissive of all scientific and academic thought, just because according to you they are all ideologically unsound in terms of class bias, is a misjudgement and unproven.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

But being dismissive of all scientific and academic thought, just because according to you they are all ideologically unsound in terms of class bias, is a misjudgement and unproven.

I'm not sure where this notion of anyone 'being dismissive of all scientific and academic thought' has come from, but it hasn't come from me.Well, I think that if no-one wants to discuss the outlines I've given about Critical Realism, and its use for understanding both physical and social phenomena (including Marx's 'value'), and its potential to provide a basis for a unified scientific method (as sought by Marx), then I suppose that the thread has run its course.If anyone in the SPGB can provide an alternative basis for the democratic control of the means of production by the proletariat, to the one that I've tried to provide, I'll be keen to read it. Perhaps anyone who wishes to do so could start a new thread.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Which when considered together unreservably places matter in its rightful place – ahead of the queue – in terms of ideas springing from the practical observation of matter in motion.

I should just comment on this allegation, too.'Ideas' don't spring from either 'practical observation' (ie. induction) or from 'matter in motion' (ie. rocks talking to us). This is Engelsian rubbish.'Ideas' spring from creative, critical humans. This is Marx's 'active side' that he admired in idealism.

Brian wrote:

…you've become myopic to all the arguments put to you regarding materialism versus idealism.

'Myopia' is a feature of every ideology: that's what I've been explaining for hundreds of post now. 'Selection' is necessary, and that means ignoring some 'matter/facts' and choosing other 'matter/facts'.So, I haven't 'become myopic' – we are all inescapably myopic, because that is the nature of science and the human production of knowledge.Further, I don't regard the debate as 'materialism versus idealism', because I can read the Theses on Feuerbach, and can clearly see that Marx selected aspects from both idealism and materialism (and anyone reading that text can see this), and thus Marx became an 'idealist-materialist' (or, 'historical materialist', 'critical realist', etc.).I've said all this before, but you still haven't cottoned on, have you, Brian?We disagree in our philosophies, but mine is democratic and can provide a basis for the SPGB's political strategy, whereas yours isn't and can't.It's pointless you just reiterating your ideology, as if the last 800+ posts hadn't happened.And no-one, not you or any other member of the SPGB, has attempted to give a unified scientific method that can apply to both rocks and value, as I have at least tried to do.

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

We disagree in our philosophies, but mine is democratic and can provide a basis for the SPGB's political strategy, whereas yours isn't and can't.

i suggested it once before. Why can't you join the party and instead of pissing into the tent, you can piss out of it.Your disagreements are not incompatble with membership as far as i can judge and the party has demonstrated its flexibility for the extensive debates on philosophy topics. Therefore so to contribute to the socialist case and the SPGB's analysis, why not set aside your reservations and your previous unfortunate experiences with party memberships and join us where you will be able to express your views even more effectively and help to actually determine the SPGB's political strategy. I doubt you have any real alternatives or other options, do you, except to continue as that lone voice in the wilderness, isolated from possible comrades and denied opportunities for activity.

[Young Master Smeet]

Been away, just to take a step back a little.  To take a philosophical saw: lets look at a mug (I'll make a fair bet there's one within your view right now).  You can see the rim, its depths, it's handle (mathematicians can give us a formula for the manifold of a mug, guess what they had on their desk when they should have  been working).  However, that mug you can see before your very eyes is a distortion.  You are only seeing the light beams being caught by your eyes, the straight line from where you are to where the mug is. The process of making a hologram involves placing a cone of photographic paper over an object, so that light from all directions, in a complete sphere is captures on the film.  If we could see an object in complete 360's around it, horiozontally and vertically, we in fact wouldn't see it, we'd just see a sphere of light.In many ways, it is a plaussible claim to make that knowledge is distortion, without reduction, contraction, abstraction, we only have the thing itself.  I remember someone on another forum whose footer quote was: 'I have a fully functional model of the universe, unfortunately, it's life size'.  In computing an important distinction is between data (lots of numbers) and information (useful data, formatted, etc.)This holds a great emancipatopry potential, if we are each of us.  As we grow into our senses and our networks of information, we each become a focus for shaping our own world.  If we are presumed to be wrapped up in ideology, we'd need priets to see us clear, but if we can each make up our own minds, as social beings making history in conditions not of our own choosing, then the possibility of acting democratically to change the world comes into view.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

i suggested it once before. Why can't you join the party and instead of pissing into the tent, you can piss out of it.

This was at least a possibility (I won't put it any higher than that) when I started to post last year (especially because of your and ALB's contributions on LibCom about 'free access communism'), but I'm afraid now I'd put it no higher than very, very, improbable. The fact that you can characterise my acts as 'pissing in' (I know it's a joke, but still revealing) tells me something: I think I'm trying to help comrades become aware of the choices we have within the philosophy of science, based upon my years of extensive reading, but I'm clearly regarded as a troublemaker, who is being subject to warnings (and an inadvertent ban) for only answering other posters who post in an unneccessarily hostile tone to me. I'm just better and funnier at 'hostility', and an outsider.

ajj wrote:

Your disagreements are not incompatble with membership as far as i can judge and the party has demonstrated its flexibility for the extensive debates on philosophy topics.

As far as I can judge, my disagreements are entirely incompatible with every other member who posts on here. To me, the party is constantly demonstrating its religious adherence to 'bourgeois science' (individualism, biological senses, induction) rather than demonstrating an 'open mind'. I should temper that statement with the fact that some members (ex-?) have been more open to persuasion, but haven't posted in my support due to their own confusion about these issues. It's difficult to overthrow a lifetime's brainwashing about the nature of science, both by the bourgeosie and other comrades taken in by Engels.

ajj wrote:

I doubt you have any real alternatives or other options, do you, except to continue as that lone voice in the wilderness, isolated from possible comrades and denied opportunities for activity.

I could give up being 'that lone voice in the wilderness', and just continue to educate myself in the arcane issues of ontology and epistemology for my own enjoyment and enlightenment; or even ditch Socialism/Communism/Marxism in its entirety, and laugh from the sidelines at the pretensions of those still stuck within 19th century frameworks of thought.I mean, 'practical observation'. FFS.Any individual can go outside, stand with their arms on their hips, and be sure that they are not moving: yep, the earth is stationary. Then, passively observe the facts of the sun going round the earth (and you can 'see' it doing just this). Then, and only then, 'let the theory emerge'. Yeah, "the sun goes round the earth", the result of Brian's 'practical observation by an individual using their own senses'.Has no-one else ever read Marx? Never mind some 20th century philosophy of science.No, Alan, I just don't do religious sects, with their unthinking certainty and abuse of heretics.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

In many ways, it is a plaussible claim to make that knowledge is distortion…

Y'know, I could cry.Instead of developing this vital insight, that knowledge is distortion, you immediately fall back into individualist answers.

YMS wrote:

… if we are each of us. As we grow into our senses and our networks of information, we each become a focus for shaping our own world. If we are presumed to be wrapped up in ideology, we'd need priets to see us clear, but if we can each make up our own minds…

[my bold]'Knowledge' is a social product, YMS, and the inevitable 'distortion' of it has social roots.If only you could ditch the bourgeois brainwashing of 'your individuality', and start to examine the 'social production' of yourself, you might take your insight further.You're a 'worker', not an 'individual'. A social product, not a mere isolated biological entity. Accepting that premise is the beginning of wisdom.

[Author]

Posts