Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Well, what I ask is: can all of us do the same experiment? Or, must we, as social beings, rely on our fellows to pass us information: preferably in the form of reliable organised knowledge, knowledge which is gathered with an other mind in mind?
Young Master Smeet wrote:Well, what I ask is: can all of us do the same experiment? Or, must we, as social beings, rely on our fellows to pass us information: preferably in the form of reliable organised knowledge, knowledge which is gathered with an other mind in mind?I really should let you work this out for yourself, YMS, and resolve the issue in your own mind, because the solution lies in what you have already accepted.But, here goes, FWIW (as Buffalo Springfield said).You have to decide whether an 'individual' does an 'experiment' (in fact, science is much more than this, but we'll have to leave that till much later), or whether a 'social individual' does an experiment.That is, is an experiment a biological act that an individual does, employing their own, isolated, senses and their own, individual 'mind'?Or is an experiment a social act that a social individual does, employing their social perception and their socially-created consciousness?My tip is to ask yourself what ideology you are using to understand 'experiment'. Are you using Communist ideology, which focuses upon the social, or an individualist ideology, which focuses on individual scientists?And further, is science a productive act or a personal act?Again, is 'knowledge' something static that a person can have, or something that society dynamically produces and constantly changes?The solution to your conundrum is in your chosen ideology, YMS. I can't make you a Communist, you either are one or you're not, for reasons external to this discussion.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp5JCrSXkJY
A social individual, alone on their desert island can indeed perform an experiment[*], that much is clear. You'll recall this question arose out of my contention that the democratic polity would be being fed information by science practitioners and would come to the same conclusions as the honest minded practitioners. Or, more tot he point,t aht information is necessarilly (and essentiall) unevenly distributed within society.However:
Quote:Again, is 'knowledge' something static that a person can have, or something that society dynamically produces and constantly changes?This is exactly what I have been arguing for against your undemocratic call for a vote on science. [*]Experiment is meant synechdocally, to stand in for all modes of research, theorising, etc. but expressing the essential point that only one eye at a time can peer down a microscope.
YMS wrote:…expressing the essential point that only one eye at a time can peer down a microscope.So, we're down to an 'eye', now?I think you've answered your ideological question from your own ideological perspective, YMS.Just why you say that you want to discuss what goes on behind an 'eye' (in all its social, historical, cultural richness), but constantly revert to talking about 'only one eye at a time', is a mystery to me.Well, it isn't really. Simply put, you're an individualist, not a Communist.That's me done for the day. You stick to your one-eyed peering, YMS.
The question you raise is one of power if some subset of society does the work of producing knowledge, and your claim that democracy is the answer to that power. Yet, whenever challenged about the question of whetehr we can all do the basic production work to get that knowledge, you run away, you don't seem to be able to handle having your ill considered and one dimensional notion of collectivism challenged.I am satisfied that the social production of knowledge occurs through members of society engaging in activities and then discussing them: and that the debate needs to be open ended, transparent and democratic in the fullest sense of being managed by the people in that society themselves. this means people will have different ideas,a nd different quantities of data and abilities to process and deal with that data: indeed, this difference is essential to the process of producing knowledge.In a socialist society, there will be many different ways of doing science, and attempting to understand our worl.
LBird wrote:mcolome1 wrote:Is it permitted in this forum to call another person an ignorant ? if It is permitted , I can call him a mother fuckerWell, since I often admit to being ignorant myself about all sorts of things, and try to learn, I've got no problem pointing out when others, like you, are clearly ignorant about particular issues.You might be a lawyer, doctor, or whatever, but that in itself gives you no insight into these epistemological and political issues, as you have shown.Why can't you engage with the arguments, rather than attacking me personally, and then throwing your dummy out of the pram when I point out your problem?
You can call yourself whatever you want, but do not call me ignorant, because I have not given you the permission, or the authority to do that, the only person in my whole life who can call me whatever he wants, is my father, because he was the one who gave and provided me with love, foods, shelter, cloth, and academic and personal education, after him, I do not allow anybody else to fool around with me.In certain places where I have lived if you call a person and ignorant, they will place a gun in your headI have not even taken any shit from dictators, and i have opposed them, and I have risked my life opposing them, therefore, I will not allow any other person to try to understimate me, and I have been personally around peoples who know more than you about this topic, and I do respect them, but I have not allowed them to call me ignorant, and they know what they are saying, because they have written books, and they have been active members of the working class movementMy participation in this topic has been in regard to Engels, and about the concept of ideology, and I have given my opinion, and it is my opinion, and I am not under the obligation to agree with your ideas, that is also your own personal problem.I have had in my head for many years my conception of freedom and democracy, and nobody had to be an intellectual ,or pretend to be a genius in order to understand both conceptions
mcolome1 wrote:…I have given my opinion, and it is my opinion…If we're Communists, we always realise we are always expressing someone else's opinions.We're social individuals.You're starting to sound like YMS.
Quote:the only person in my whole life who can call me whatever he wants, is my father, because he was the one who gave and provided me with love, foods, shelter, cloth, and academic and personal education, after him, I do not allow anybody else to fool around with meBut what about your Mum? Didn't she bear you in her womb for 9 months, suckled you from her tit, washed and dressed you…
mcolome1 wrote:My participation in this topic has been in regard to Engels…It would be good to take this discussion forward, because what most comrades regard as 'Marxism' is actually 'Engelsism'.In fact, the more one digs deeper, and reads the two critically, the more it becomes obvious, not only that Engels 'simplification' or 'translation' of Marx was mistaken, but that what most comrades 'believe' to be Marx's ideas, is none other than Engels' reversion to pre-Theses thought about 'materialism'.Put simply, Marx wasn't a 'materialist', in the sense that most comrades appear to believe. Any reading of the Theses shows that Marx was grasping towards a 'mid-position' between 'materialism' and 'idealism', which ditched part of each, and took from part of each.If anyone is still interested (including you, mcolome1), I could put together a brief list of issues which separated the 'materialist' Engels from the 'idealist-materialist' Marx.I won't bother to do this unless there is a taste for critical thought here, though. I've got no time for the religious reverence displayed to either Engels or Marx by some Communists.
I'd like to see that. Although the fact that the theses ends with Chuck announcing the new materialism suggest, er, that he was a materialist…
Young Master Smeet wrote:I'd like to see that. Although the fact that the theses ends with Chuck announcing the new materialism suggest, er, that he was a materialist…Funnily enough, I wasn't aiming my query at you, YMS.As you've shown above, you already 'know' the answer.If you're happy with what you 'know', neither will you benefit from reading what I write, nor will I benefit from a critical discussion, and thus any efforts I put into writing a post would be lost on you and would waste my time.I'm beyond the religious certainties of the priests spluttering "But, but, but… it says in the text…"What's more, YMS, you're not even a Communist priest, but an individualist priest…So, no thanks, YMS.Anyone else want to discuss Engels' 'materialism', and how it differs from Marx's 'idealism-materialism'?Whichever comrades are completely happy with the 'materialism' of the multi-person "Marx-Engels", don't bother to engage, because it will be a waste of time. I want to critically discuss the problems which have been evident in "Marx-Engels" since at least the 1930s, rather than merely reiterate the words of the gods, as YMS is already clearly keen to do.
LBird wrote:Blah, blah blah…Karl Marx wrote:He [Her Duhring] knows very well that my method of development is not Hegelian, since I am a materialist and Hegel is an idealist. Hegel's dialectic is the basic form of all dialectic, but only after it has been stripped of its mystical form, and it is precisely this which distinguishes my method.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_03_06-abs.htm So there you go…
No, I've shown that I have a position, and opinions, not that i know. I'm interested to see what you're on about. That's what debate is for, to have my positions challenged and tested. Yes, frankly I am suspicious of the whole 'It's all Engels' fault' thing, because it exonerates Marx, and I think they hang together or not at all. They wrote the Holy Family together, and the German Ideology together. yes, we can read the differences between Principles of Communism and the Manifesto to see that Marx seemed to be more theory orientated and what he brought to the relationship, but overall, as can be seen from some letters, I think it's more that their general output got caught up in the intellectual atmosphere of the time (as their own theories would suggest).
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:Blah, blah blah…Karl Marx wrote:He [Her Duhring] knows very well that my method of development is not Hegelian, since I am a materialist and Hegel is an idealist. Hegel's dialectic is the basic form of all dialectic, but only after it has been stripped of its mystical form, and it is precisely this which distinguishes my method.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_03_06-abs.htm So there you go…
Ahhh… the religious and their texts, eh?Yes indeed, 'there we go…'.You won't have a word said against your gods, and heresy really annoys you so much, that you can't just let critical thought explore, can you, DJP? You just have to keep chipping in, every so often, having ignored all the detailed posts I've written, and the other thinkers that I've quoted, and indeed Einstein and Kepler, because you're a religious devotee.I'm very clear that I wouldn't last long in the SPGB. In fact, all the contributions by SPGB members on this thread have been intensely hostile to my critical engagement with Marx and Engels. Or, your god, 'Marx-Engels'.Not one SPGB member has displayed any doubt at all.
Of course, we don't treat the words of Marx as holy write, if we get dragged into these 'what did they really say' arguments, it's to rebut distortion. We're more interested in the ideas than the man. For example, this morning I've been tracking down this disgusting article by Marx on the Russian Loan it's utterly indefensible, and we wouldn't want to defend it. Marx held many abhorent views with which we fundamentally disagree: it's the ideas we propound.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.