the difference between Marxism and original communist theory/ideology

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo, I've answered your question, and you really do have to try and read what I wrote in my last post. 

Sorry but you haven't answered my point at all, I've gone through your posts with a toothcomb and there is absolutely nothing in the way of an answer to my question (several questions actually). I wanted to know from you whether or not you accept that there will inevitably be to some extent a social division of labour in socialism/communism.  Meaning that were will inevitably be a degree of specialisation (we can't all be neurosurgeons).  This ties in directly with your claims about the democratisation of "scientific truth".  I've made my position clear.  I can't see the point in voting for a scientific theory assuming one even knew what it is about.  If you want to believe the sun revolves around the earth then I support your right to hold and proclaim that "truth" as you see it  even if I don't agree with it. The point is, though, if you accept that there will be a social division of labour with its accompanying specialisms then this has direct implications for your proposal about voting on scientific theories.  If most of us have never heard of some obscure theory in biochemistry how can we possibly vote on it if we don't know what it is about.  That just doesn't make sense does it now. That is not to say we are incapable of knowing of what it is about.and your big mistake is to assume that that is what I am suggesting. I m not.  What I am saying is that we simply do not have the time – any of us no matter how gifted – to acquaint ourselves with any more than a tiny sliver of the sum total of human knowledge..  Inevitably we will focus on things that interest us and disregard the rest. At the end of the day that means that only a small minority are going to be bothered with voting on the merits of String Theory. Do you agree with this  or don't you and if not why not?

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

In pursuit of my Democratic Communist belief that the role of Communists is to explain complex ideas to fellow workers, so that my fellow workers can develop at a far faster rate than I did, because I sum up years of reading into simpler analogies, here is an explanation of the relationship of Marx’s ‘idealism-materialism’ to Engels’ ‘materialism’.Imagine an electrician who finds two grey wires hanging down from a ceiling. Each grey wire is an outer casing for two inner wires, a red one and a green one. The electrician wants to splice the two grey wires, but only requires the feeds of both of the green wires to be taken forward. So, the electrician gets a third piece of grey wire, again containing two inner wires, but which are both green. She connects the green wire, from the left-hand grey wire hanging down, to one of the green wires in her piece of grey wire, and she connects the other green wire, from the right-hand grey wire hanging down, to the second green wire in her wire. Lastly, she bends upwards the red wire of the left-hand feed and covers it with tape, and repeats this with the other red wire from the right-hand grey wire.So, the electrician now has a feed taking forward power from both of the input grey wires, and the input grey wires both have their unused red wires safely taped off, unwanted.Having finished her task, the electrician then moves on to other, more urgent, work.But… she has a mate, a bloke who knows nothing about electrics, but thinks that he does. We all know the sort. He offers to progress her work, and she trusts her mate, and assumes that his estimation of himself can be trusted, and so leaves him unsupervised, to continue her initial task.He, however, on finding the joined wire taking from two sources, decides that this is a bit messy, and thinks it can be simplified. So, he unfastens the join between the green wire linked to the left-hand green wire, untapes the right-hand red wire, and joins the two together. Much simpler and clearer! Now, the right hand grey wire simply continues into the connecting wire, entirely continuing the both inputs from that right-hand grey wire. Much better than having the complexity of wires being joined into a ‘Y’ shape, and he lastly pushes the left-hand grey wire back into the ceiling, well out of harm’s way, and out of sight of any other future meddlers!He assures his companion that he’s completed her original work, and simplified it into the bargain. She’s not too sure just how her work has been ‘simplified’, but she’s now far too busy with the massive new task facing her, and warmly thanks her trusted mate.Years later, some French ‘electricians’ tell her of the extensions they’ve made to her electrical work, but when she examines the powerless results, she’s astounded, and recognises immediate that this is not ‘electrics’ as she knows it, thus declaring that, if this is ‘electrics’, as far as she’s concerned “I’m no ‘electrician!’ ”.

assuming that they are both working on a British system from what you've said, neither of them are much an electrician. In the first place they shoulld have used a junction box (you might want to check BS 7671:2008 the latest update to electical regulations).. They are also talking about input, which strictly speaking is incorrect. In AC current (at an atomic level)  there is a herd of electrons which all run one way, then stop, turn round and run the other way half a cycle later. Since the electrons are running in both directions their is no polarity, I think the term they should have used is feed. lastly the French domestic system uses black, yellow/green (where they have an earth, which in my experience isn't that often)  and Blue for neutral (red for live is becoming a little more common.) therefole how far I would trust the judgement of the electricians to make extentions is a bit limited.Perhaps a little less philosophy and a little more time spent with basic electrical engineering would benefit you

[LBird]

Sympo wrote:

I don't understand. What is your definition of truth?

My 'definition of truth' is the same as Marx's.We create 'truth' by social theory and practice, which is democratic productive activity.The theory of truth that I employ is a 'democratic theory of truth' (often called consensus gentium (Latin for Agreement of the people)).Those who follow the 'materialist' ideology of Engels and Lenin employ a 'correspondence theory of truth'. I presume that you, too, employ this 'reflection' theory of the creation of knowledge.If you decide to look these issues up, note the connections between 'reflection' (regarding 'knowledge creation') and 'correspondence' (regarding 'truth'). They are the basis of the 'materialist' ideology.

[Sympo]

LBird wrote:

"We create 'truth' by social theory and practice, which is democratic productive activity."But most people can believe that the Earth is flat, it doesn't mean it's true, right? Have I misunderstood you?"Those who follow the 'materialist' ideology of Engels and Lenin employ a 'correspondence theory of truth'. I presume that you, too, employ this 'reflection' theory of the creation of knowledge."After reading what "correspondence theory of truth" means, then yes this is what I think is correct at the moment. It appears that it isn't just "those who follow the 'materialist' ideology of Engels and Lenin" that believe in this. A lot of other people seem to believe in this.Aren't knowledge and truth two different things?

[LBird]

Sympo wrote:

After reading what "correspondence theory of truth" means, then yes this is what I think is correct at the moment. It appears that it isn't just "those who follow the 'materialist' ideology of Engels and Lenin" that believe in this. A lot of other people seem to believe in this.

Your're quite correct, Sympo, that 'a lot of other people seem to believe in this [correspondence theory of truth]'.The simple reason for this belief is that it is one of the ruling class ideas, which Marx claims dominate the thinking of a class society.There are always other ideas, though, which have their roots in the exploited class, and the belief in a 'democratic theory of truth' is one of those.The key point for you, though, is that you have realised that different people have different ideas about what constitutes 'truth'. It's for you, now, to research and debate these 'theories of truth', and weigh them up, and decide for yourself which one says most to you about your life in this society.

[Sympo]

LBird wrote:

"Your're quite correct, Sympo, that 'a lot of other people seem to believe in this [correspondence theory of truth]'.The simple reason for this belief is that it is one of the ruling class ideas, which Marx claims dominate the thinking of a class society."My point was that it isn't something that just Leninists, or Crypto-Leninists believe in."The key point for you, though, is that you have realised that different people have different ideas about what constitutes 'truth'. It's for you, now, to research and debate these 'theories of truth', and weigh them up, and decide for yourself which one says most to you about your life in this society."So you're not going to answer the questions I have asked you in my post?

[Lew]

LBird wrote:

My 'definition of truth' is the same as Marx's.

Is this true?

[ALB]

I don't think Marx did subscribe to the "20 trillion flies can't be wrong" theory of truth

[ALB]

Sympo wrote:

After reading what "correspondence theory of truth" means, then yes this is what I think is correct at the moment.

Actually, Sympo, while this theory, "naive realism" if you like, is alright for everyday living, it's not really adequate.  Our minds don't simply reflect or photograph the world out there "as it really is".There is something out there, a passing mass of ever-changing phenomena, which the mind makes sense of by describing and naming parts of it, this with a view to being able to better survive in it by being able to predict what will happen, both to take this into account (eg the apparent movement of the Sun in the sky which means that day will follow night) as well as to control it (if you do x, y will happen, eg plant seeds and food will grow). This is essentially what science is doing.

[Sympo]

ALB wrote:

"Actually, Sympo, while this theory, 'naive realism' if you like, is alright for everyday living, it's not really adequate.  Our minds don't simply reflect or photograph the world out there 'as it really is'."It doesn't?But something is true, or false, independently from what we think of the subject, right?Am I misunderstanding what "correspondence theory of truth" is?

[LBird]

Sympo wrote:

But something is true, or false, independently from what we think… right?

[my bold]Your question can only be answered from the basis of a 'theory of truth', Sympo.Based upon a 'correspondence theory', the answer is 'Yes'.Based upon a 'democratic theory', the answer is 'No'.The former stresses the 'independence' of an 'objective reality' which is separate from the 'subject', whereas the latter stresses the 'creation' of a 'reality-for-us' which is related to the 'subject'.Marx argued that we (as the social subject) create our object.

[ALB]

Sympo wrote:

But something is true, or false, independently from what we think of the subject, right?

There is something out there that's independent of our minds, the "outside world" if you like, statements about which are either true or false according to a particular theory of truth. But, as statements are the product of minds, it can't be said "truth" or "falsity" are independent of minds.In other words, there is an external world outside the mind (or, more accurately, of which human minds are part). Only philosophical idealists (better idea-ists) hold that this is creation of mind (whether the mind of a "God" or of collective humanity or a single individual) but, in practice, they don't really believe this as they, like the rest of us, behave as if there was an independent, external world.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Sympo wrote:

But something is true, or false, independently from what we think of the subject, right?

There is something out there that's independent of our minds, the "outside world" if you like, statements about which are either true or false according to a particular theory of truth. But, as statements are the product of minds, it can't be said "truth" or "falsity" are independent of minds.In other words, there is an external world outside the mind (or, more accurately, of which human minds are part). Only philosophical idealists (better idea-ists) hold that this is creation of mind (whether the mind of a "God" or of collective humanity or a single individual) but, in practice, they don't really believe this as they, like the rest of us, behave as if there was an independent, external world.

ALB account is a good one, until he labels those who follow Marx's theory that 'collective humanity create their reality' as 'idealists'.The basis of ALB's ideology is Engels' 'materialism', which holds that either one is a 'materialist', or one is an 'idealist'.However, there are three positions: idealism (god creates the world/reality), materialism (the 'external world' is this world/reality') and Marx's idealism-materialism (that humans create their own 'reality' from an 'external world').So, from the perspective of ALB and Engels, anyone who argues that 'something creates their own world' (the materialists do not distinguish between 'god' and 'humanity') is an 'idealist'.From the perspective me and Marx (and we do distinguish between a 'creative god' and a 'creative humanity') anyone who argues that 'the external world just exists, and there is no active creation involved', is a 'materialist'; that anyone who argues that 'god creates the world' is an 'idealist'; and those who argue that 'humans create their own reality, by social theory and practice' are Marxists.This third, unified, position of Marx, allows him to argue that humans can change their world (as it's a creation of their own social activity), whereas the Engelsian materialists can only contemplate 'external reality', the 'Truth' which has been 'discovered' (for example, the view that  'the earth goes round the sun' is not able to be changed, and is regarded as a final truth of an external reality).So, we have 'idealism' (god), 'materialism' (contemplation) and Marx (change).You have to choose, Sympo.

[DJP]

John Searle's "Refutation of Relativism" might be of interest herehttp://www.luxautumnalis.de/john-searle-refutation-relativism-englisch-und-deutsch/

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

John Searle's "Refutation of Relativism" might be of interest herehttp://www.luxautumnalis.de/john-searle-refutation-relativism-englisch-und-deutsch/

Thanks for that DJP.From the start, Searle is clearly wrong, from a Marxist point of view.

Searle wrote:

Relativism is the theory that the truth (or falsity) of any proposition is always relative to certain sorts of psychological attitudes on the part of the person who states, believes or otherwise judges the truth of the proposition.

[my bold]He's clearly starting from the 'common sense' view of bourgeois individualism, with his axioms of 'psychological attitudes' and 'the person'.For socialists, the axioms are 'social ideologies' and 'social classes'.So we would have an opening statement of:

Quote:

Relativism is the theory that the truth (or falsity) of any proposition is always relative to certain sorts of social ideologies on the part of the social class which states, believes or otherwise judges the truth of the proposition.

This would be entirely consistent with Marx's views.

[Author]

Posts