the difference between Marxism and original communist theory/ideology
- This topic has 410 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Like Dave B, i don't know why people are getting het up in this discussion. I don't think there is such a chasm between us and LBirdScience is determined by politics, by democracy and by beliefs. In large swathes of MidWest America – the Bible Belt – what you and i see around us is vastly different….we see the wonders of evolution and nature, while they are full of admiration (or in fear) of some Creator. Saudi Arabia isn't known as the centre of scientific research because their worldview is still centre on medieval religion and their "reality" cannot be challenged because of politics and the unstability it may bring to the region…although when it comes to geology and the petroleum industry, they happily turn a blind eye to the contradictions that exist. (i'm sure the Koran is being re-written in Iran so that nuclear research can be further progressed)Climate change is caused by human actions…well, that is a myth according to some and politicians are asking for you to vote on that it is not a scientific truth. We have many scientific claims that are being countered and which have entered the political discourse and people are voting upon them, Robbo.We have GM food (and labelling), anti-vax movements (fluoride in the water is frequently voted upon). Science is either supported or denied by votes via government policy with their grants and subsidies…homeopathy paid for by the NHS. Things as basic as add X to Y and this will happen or not depending on their chemical composition…(ingredients) …are frequently a politicl decision-making issue. Marx talks about false consciousness, i'm sure this is all related. It is our task to create a society where when we do debate and discuss scientific "truths", that it is a level playing field and part of it is promoting democracy in science…Sometimes peoples "truths" and the scientific "reality" will diverge. We see it everyday with the pharmaceutical industry. Certian medications supposedly are effective in treating particular illnesses, and later are found not to be so and actually was the result of data manipulation for the benefit of the pharmaceutical industry's material interests (material as in not materialist) and they were supported by the health industry's psychiatry "premises" of what is an illness and what is not…a very basic "truth" for every person…whether they are sick or not.. So- called scientific "reality" is found wanting when applied in the world of people and not of profits LBird is right to emphasise in the end it is going to be us who determine truth by votes and political action and when socialism is established this process is not going to cese and we will require to develop structures and means better than to-day's clumsy democracy for us to exercise this peoples' control over science. It is going to part of Industrial Democracy, we will assume full and deeper direction of all industries, including as he said previously, the universities and the research labs – those seats of learning are not neutral and perhaps will neve will be…and it takes heretics to shake them out of prevailing ideas. I don't think we and LBird have any serious disagreement on this and i have a thick enough skin to let his debating style bounce off and just giggle to myself when he has accused us of being Leninists. If he really thought that why is he on this forum so often trying to get us to mend our ways…he recognises the affinity he shares with us and not with the SWP or SPEW. I will pull him up for when he does something i think mistaken as recommend a vote for Corbyn but only from those who are political ignorant. ALB was correct to judge that it veered towards elitism. But people will know from this forum, that even members have differing attitudes towards individuals in the political scene …Russel Brand, Chomsky etc. etc….
alanjjohnstone wrote:Like Dave B, i don't know why people are getting het up in this discussion. I don't think there is such a chasm between us and LBirdScience is determined by politics, by democracy and by beliefs.Its one thing to say science is determined "by politics, by democracy and by beliefs" (although I would suggest this is a two way process); it is quite another thing to say that in a democratic society that is socialism/communism the specificities of science – that is to say , the "truth" value of particular scientific theories, if I might put it like that, will be determined by a popular vote. To me this latter proposition is so manifestly ludicrous and unworkable that I cannot for the life of me see how anyone can put forward such a proposition. LBird has clearly not thought through what he is saying. I don't have much quarrel with LBirds assault on what he calls "materialism". This is the old fashioned positivistic view of science as something that is value-free and totally objective. Scientists are as much subject to irrationalism as the rest of us – read Kuhn on the process of paradigm switches – while developments within such fields as physics have radically subverted the influence of this positivism. The "observer effect" is but one example of this. However I am much more interested in the practical application of this complex relationship between science and democratic culture, This has been largely neglected in this discussion and studiously evaded by LBird himself whenever questions have been put to him on the matter. This he refused to say whether there will be any kind of social division of labour in a communist society meaning a tendency for people to specialise in certain occupations (we can't all be neurosurgeons which requires years of training and no one in their right mind would allow some untrained person off the street to operate to remove a tumour in their brain). Needless to say, the inevitability of a social division of labour has massive implications for the way in which scientific knowledge and understanding is developed. Its not a question of clinging to a view of science as "elitist", this is a complete red herring. Specialisation will inexorably in the end result in a de facto situation in which only a small number of individuals will concern themselves with concrete specificities of particular scientific theories even if they are broadly constrained by the democratic culture of the wider society itself ( which I thoroughly approve of)LBird has dismissed such talk of practicality as some kind of "bourgeois" or "individualistic" obsession. Thats bunkum. On the contrary, it is precisely the avoidance of such serious practical issues that brings socialism or communism into disrepute. It turns us into the laughing stock of cynics who can then dismiss us as "dreamers".
ALB wrote:…what scientists are doing is not so much "discovering" the ouside world "as it is" as describing its course in a way that it can be more or less accurately predicted and so used to serve human purposes. …ALB is correct here that "discovery as it is" is not what scientists do, but rather it is "creation as it is for us".This fits with Marx's claim that we create our object. Thus the 'objective world' is a world-for-us, our creation, a 'socially-objective world'. This is what Marx means by his differentiation of 'inorganic nature' (the ingredient into our social theory and practice) and 'organic nature' (the socially-objective world, created by us, for our social purposes).
ALB wrote:In this sense, what is "true" would be what is "useful to human survival". That's my view but other members may have a different approach. I think it has something in common with this view of Marx's that "truth" is demonstracted by practice.Yes, but for Marx, the only 'practice' is social practice. This is not individuals' practice, but a social activity (ie. social labour). Thus, only the producers of their object can determine what is 'true-for-them'. Social labour produces 'truth-for-us'.
ALB wrote:As he put it, in his Theses on Feuernach:Quote:The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.For those unused to 19th century usage, when Marx write 'man' and 'his', he means 'humanity' and 'its'. Marx is not talking about individuals 'doing things', but about 'reality' being a 'reality-for-us'. The notion of a 'reality' which we can separate from our social practice, as Marx says, "is a purely scholastic question".But it doesn't stop the 'scholastics' talking about a'Mars' which is 'out there', which we 'know' simply 'as it is'.It soon becomes obvious that 'bourgeois science' is this 'scholasticism', which pretends to 'know' a 'world' that is outside of our interests, purposes, ideas and practice. These are all amenable to democratic control, and will be in a socialist society, which will ensure that its social production is democratically controlled.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Like Dave B, i don't know why people are getting het up in this discussion. I don't think there is such a chasm between us and LBirdScience is determined by politics, by democracy and by beliefs. … It is our task to create a society where when we do debate and discuss scientific "truths", that it is a level playing field and part of it is promoting democracy in science… So- called scientific "reality" is found wanting when applied in the world of people and not of profits LBird is right to emphasise in the end it is going to be us who determine truth by votes and political action and when socialism is established this process is not going to cese and we will require to develop structures and means better than to-day's clumsy democracy for us to exercise this peoples' control over science. It is going to part of Industrial Democracy, we will assume full and deeper direction of all industries, including as he said previously, the universities and the research labs – those seats of learning are not neutral and perhaps will neve will be…and it takes heretics to shake them out of prevailing ideas. I don't think we and LBird have any serious disagreement on this and i have a thick enough skin to let his debating style bounce off and just giggle to myself when he has accused us of being Leninists. If he really thought that why is he on this forum so often trying to get us to mend our ways…he recognises the affinity he shares with us and not with the SWP or SPEW.alan, I clearly agree with most of what you've written, but I still don't think the others (or you, even?) appreciate the implications for our revolutionary view of 'science'.'Reality' is a what we create, a 'reality-for-us'.'Nature' is what we create, a 'nature-for-us'.'Truth' is what we create, a 'truth-for-us'.The problem is, Lenin didn't agree with this – he held to a 'reflection theory of knowledge', as do all those who argue that they 'know' nature 'as it is'. And unfortunately, Engels also (at least in places, he was far more confused) argued for this 'copy or mirror' theory of knowledge.This is why I argue that those who don't accept Marx's method, that we create our world through social theory and practice, and so can change it (by different theory and different practice, producing a different 'object'), are in fact following Lenin and Engels.But on this issue of 'Leninism', the difference between the SWP and SPEW is that they are not democratic parties, and so minorities of workers arguing what I'm arguing cannot survive long enough to convince the cadre and thus remove the CC, but the SPGB, being democratic, has the possibility of being convinced to ditch 'Leninism in science'.Whether it does or not, of course, is yet to be decided.
LBird wrote:These are all amenable to democratic control, and will be in a socialist society, which will ensure that its social production is democratically controlled.Two questions: are there any limits to what we can decide to socially produce together, or is our will and imagination the only limit?Second question: if there is not, why do we need democratic control? Couldn't the minority group choose to construct a reality of their own alongside the majority reality? Why do we need democratic decisions? (Is this something to which we are constrained, or could we choose to abolish this requirement?).
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:These are all amenable to democratic control, and will be in a socialist society, which will ensure that its social production is democratically controlled.Two questions: are there any limits to what we can decide to socially produce together, or is our will and imagination the only limit?
I'm a Marxist, YMS, and you're not. That's not a problem, you're entitled to your opinion, but, for clarity for other readers, why not just say so?Your individualist and idealist concept of 'will and imagination' is not Marx's.Marx's starts from the axiom of 'social theory and practice'.So, if you want to discuss 'will and imagination', you need to find someone, unlike me, who doesn't follow Marx on these points.
YMS wrote:Second question: if there is not, why do we need democratic control? Couldn't the minority group choose to construct a reality of their own alongside the majority reality? Why do we need democratic decisions? (Is this something to which we are constrained, or could we choose to abolish this requirement?).[my bold]Again, your focus on a 'minority group' choosing outside of democratic controls, is not a concern for those who are Democratic Communists, and think that all social production should be under the democratic control of our society.Should our society choose to delegate a measure of power to a 'minority group', then of course that can be done. But, clearly, if the 'minority group' try to follow a 'theory and practice' that is dangerous for the interests, purposes, needs and desires of the majority, then that delegated power will be withdrawn. So, 'democratic control' is an axiom for the social production of a socialist society.
Are there any limits to what we can decide to socially produce together, or is our social theory and practice the only limit?
Young Master Smeet wrote:Are there any limits to what we can decide to socially produce together, or is our social theory and practice the only limit?Yes, our social theory and practice is our only limit.But, with social theory and practice varying throughout history, clearly differing modes of production have different 'limits'. So, 'limits' are socio-historical, and change.Perhaps you don't recognise the category 'mode of production' (or 'history', or 'change'), but then you'll clearly have a different ideological opinion to me.
LBird wrote:Should our society choose to delegate a measure of power to a 'minority group', then of course that can be done. But, clearly, if the 'minority group' try to follow a 'theory and practice' that is dangerous for the interests, purposes, needs and desires of the majority, then that delegated power will be withdrawn. So, 'democratic control' is an axiom for the social production of a socialist society.Couldn't the majority simply declare that the activities of the minority are not harmful, and simply make that so and true?
LBird wrote:Yes, our social theory and practice is our only limit.So, we could blot out the sun, travel faster than the speed of light, travel through time and have immortality, if we made that our social theory and practice?
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:Yes, our social theory and practice is our only limit.So, we could blot out the sun, travel faster than the speed of light, travel through time and have immortality, if we made that our social theory and practice?
You really do struggle to read what's being written, YMS.Which bit of 'social practice' do you not understand?You seem to be some sort of 'idealist', who thinks 'ideas alone' constitute 'theory and practice'. You should read Marx some day.Right, unless you read and respond to what I write (rather than what you want to read), I'll halt our conversation here.Your choice, YMS.
LBird wrote:You really do struggle to read what's being written, YMS.Which bit of 'social practice' do you not understand?You seem to be some sort of 'idealist', who thinks 'ideas alone' constitute 'theory and practice'. You should read Marx some day.Right, unless you read and respond to what I write (rather than what you want to read), I'll halt our conversation here.Your choice, YMS.Yes, exactly, I am struggling to read what's being written, hence why I keep asking questions which go un-answered.Could a majority declare by fiat that a minorities activities are not harmful?If inorganic nature has no qualities and does not delimit what we may do with it, and the only limit is our social theory and practice, in principle, we could vote to travel faster than the speed of light? If not, where am I going wrong? We develop the theory, and act it out, shirley?
Young Master Smeet wrote:If not, where am I going wrong?You're concealing your ideology from us, and, I suspect, from yourself.Tell us your ideology, and we can examine your axioms and assumptions, and then we can make some progress.
We're talking about your ideology. Perhaps you can expand on what you mean by the signifiers 'social theory and practice'?
Young Master Smeet wrote:We're talking about your ideology.No, you're wrong, yet again, YMS. You must get fed up with being wrong, eh?We're talking about my ideology of Marxism from the perspective of your ideology.It seems only fair that you openly state your ideology, after all, since I openly state mine.I won't take this any further with you until you do so.My good advice, though, is for you to discuss your views with someone who shares your own ideology, because you'll gain nothing from a discussion with a Marxist.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.