The Long Awaited Materialism thread

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,well, if we're looking in a rational way at what proletarian science might be, it'd be best to start with the practice of proletarian scientists, rather than starting from the sky.  Living ensuous proletarians, engaged in the production of knowledge.

[my bold]Would that be using bourgeois 'rationality', or proletarian 'rationality'?Or is that too 'sky-ey' for you?Why not just ask why we can't just deal with 'the real world' and 'common sense'?And forget about all this 'revolution' malarky, eh?

[LBird]

Seriously, YMS, why would you employ a method of 'starting with practice'?Surely our Communist method is to 'start with criticism of existing practice'?Y'know, 'theory and practice'. Which I never tire of saying…

[Anonymous]

Socialism-communism is a movement from theory into practice, that is reason why we need a well developed socialist theory., and it has been the struggle of the WSM/SPGB for more than 100 years.   Practice was what Marx perceived during the 19th Century and he tried to turn it into a socialist theory. In a socialist-communist society there would not be anything called proletarian science, or proletarian practice,  because the proletarian will cease to exist. It would be what Marx perceived as the unification of nature with human society. All those wrong terms came from Engels, including the conception that communism is a doctrine, and his concept of scientific socialism, and his definition of ideology as false conscience. Most of us were Engelsians, and Lasalleans. In some way I have seen several conceptions spinning around Hegel's Phenomenology  of the mind

[Young Master Smeet]

Well, thinking on a little, I reckon we can point to a revolutionary proletarian science (nice dodge, btw): Wikipedia.  That is proletarian science stripped of the hierarchies of bourgeois control.Lets go back to the (roughly remembered) methodology of the German ideology.  So the English (And Scottish) bourgeosie were in a position to implement their ideas, and developed empiricism.  The French were disempowered, and developed rationalism, and the Germans imported rationalism, and thus developed idealism (and Americans imported ideas which they put into practice, and thus pragmatism).  My rationality is proletarian, per Hegel, what is rational is actual, what is actual is rational.  I am actually proletarian.

[Young Master Smeet]

Sorry, should have said: Wikipedia is noticeably not democratic (yes, this could be ascribed to the objectivist views of Jimmy Wales, but then, why would it fly if it ran counter to the ideology of the countless proletarians who contribute?).  That said, I would expect science in Socialism to be like a giant wikipedia…

[LBird]

YMS, I'm not sure if your latest posts have been aimed at me, for my answers.But if I can illustrate my problem. You said:

YMS wrote:

LBird,well, if we're looking in a rational way at what proletarian science might be, it'd be best to start with the practice of proletarian scientists, rather than starting from the sky.

If we pose your method in terms of, say, economics, it would read:

Quote:

LBird,well, if we're looking in a rational way at what economics might be, it'd be best to start with the practice of economists, rather than starting from the sky.

My simple answer to this would be:No, if we start from the current practice of economics (and ignore theory), we're then compelled to use the present theories of that practice, like 'the firm', 'supply and demand', 'individual consumers', 'selfish human nature', 'marginal utility', etc., to understand that practice.On the contrary, we need, firstly, to read Marx's Capital, to critically theorise 'the commodity', 'exploitation', etc. and then apply our new critical theory to the current practice of economics.That is, we must 'start from the sky'. That's how humans understand both the social and natural worlds. Theory and practice, in that order.To start from 'practice' is a conservative method. It accepts 'what is' as the basis of understanding. We Communists start from 'criticism of what exists'.Hope this helps, YMS.

[DJP]

The German Ideology wrote:

The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way.

[Young Master Smeet]

Quote:

No, if we start from the current practice of economics (and ignore theory), we're then compelled to use the present theories of that practice, like 'the firm', 'supply and demand', 'individual consumers', 'selfish human nature', 'marginal utility', etc., to understand that practice.

But that is precisely what Charlie did?  He started from the current practice, and the theories that accompanied it, he didn't start with a new critical theory: 99% of Capital can be found by reading Smith & Ricardo.ISTR he even discusses how the equation of labour and value is only revealed by the changes in the practice of production (quite where I can't call to mind just now).But all this evades my substantive point, that you can't talk about 'proletarian rationality' as divorced from the practical reason of actually existing proletarians.

[LBird]

YMS, DJP, if you want to start from 'practice', be my guest.Nothing I say is going to change your minds, I've come to realise that. There you go. Consciousness, at last!

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird,to be fair, you haven't exactly engaged in argument, merely assertion.  I asked a relatively sensible question, how you can refer to proletarian rationality/science, whatever, without reference to what the proletariate actually does in terms of reason/science, etc.  If it's not the mode of science as practiced by proletarians, then isn't adding 'proletarian' just a bit of branding, a bit like 'All new and improved'?

[LBird]

LBird wrote:

If it's not the mode of science as practiced by proletarians, then isn't adding 'proletarian' just a bit of branding, a bit like 'All new and improved'?

Yeah, I'm just the Communist Salesman, trying to bamboozle! And a failure at that, too!We should inscribe across our banners: "For Practical Rationality!"Inspiring for the youth, what?

[LBird]

You know what I find so strange, comrades? The fact that the philosophical position I’m advocating is the one far more in line with the general philosophical approach of the SPGB.That is, an approach that stresses the centrality of human thought, and its creative and critical thinking (which is prior to our practical dealings with the world of nature and society), provides a far more suitable ideological basis for the political thrust of the SPGB, that of propaganda, education, persuasion and of actually asking other workers what they think, by the process of democracy, in preparation for the assumption of power by the proletariat.The alternative, of ‘practice’ and the ‘real world’ being the basis of politics, is far more suited to provide an underpinning for the political approach of the Leninist, elitist, cadre-party, where a ‘select few’ are the ones who ‘read the runes’ of ‘what really is’, and merely pass on this ‘truth of reality’ to the passive majority of workers who can’t hope achieve this level of consciousness themselves, by their own efforts. The ‘professional revolutionaries’ merely reflect the role of ‘professional scientists’ (and, in an earlier epoch, the ‘professional priests’); that is, an elite above society, who are beyond talk of ‘democratic controls’. Why should the mass control cadre or clergy? The truth is ‘in the stars’.Even more simply, looking at ‘what is’, and drawing conclusions, is essentially a conservative method. How this method ever came to be the one espoused by ‘Socialists’ (at least, by those who see the need for revolution in thought and practice), is a question worth asking.I’m still inclined to place the cause of this with the immense prestige of 19th century positivist science, garnered from its tremendous real advances, and Engels being philosophically dazzled by the evident progress of physics (and other sciences) during his lifetime.I’ll make one prediction, though, comrades:‘Those who start from ‘practice’ and ‘material conditions’ will oppose 'democracy’.All talk of ‘workers control’ will be dropped, in favour of a ‘parliament’ of ‘experts’. I can already see this dichotomy amongst the SPGB posters, when the issue of proper workers’ power comes up. Those who favour proper democracy will stress the need to ensure power lies with newly created workers’ councils, whereas those who favour ‘practice’ and ‘reality as it is’ will favour the retention of a modified ‘parliament’ as the location of power.That is, some SPGB-ers see parliament as the end (to be retained), whereas others see parliament as a means (to be discarded).My views support the latter. I’m in favour of the SPGB’s strategy if it leads to the self-destruction of parliament and the state.But if the SPGB  sees parliament as something to be taken over and retained, I’m opposed.Philosophy, eh?

[LBird]

So you are opposed to democracy, twc?

[twc]

The real question is:  Will you be forced, by the inexorable materialism of social being, to oppose your purely idealistic adherence to democracy, in order to sustain big-C, once you institute your global thought control regime? The question is not academic, but one that all reigns of terror must ineluctably confront, not in the safe abstract world of social thought, but in the dangerous concrete world of social practice, where we must prove ourselves, and what we really believe:Can you afford to remain democratic?

[twc]

Big-C CommunismYou say you advocate democratic control of scientific thought because you are a big-C Communist while I, thankfully, am not.As a big-C Communist, you want society to determine the truth content of science because a big-C Communist can never be quite sure what anti-social thoughts scientists might concoct if left to beaver away on their own without proper supervisory micro-management by big-C Communist society.Amazingly, you have naively expressed unbounded delusional confidence that grateful scientists will embrace you with open arms, for proposing global interference in their individual productive lives, by shoving big-C Communist society’s snooping snout between their suspect selves and the world they study.Now, we can all readily imagine gigantic world-wide collaborative research projects being organized and conducted productively over the web.  That may very well be the future of much theoretical research.Scientific research necessarily involves collaboration, but it crucially relies on division of labour, upon divide and conquer, not merely to investigate and comprehend all of nature, which is a humanly impossible feat, but just to investigate and comprehend in depth a mere part of nature.Research, simply because it investigates the as-yet-unknown, is difficult to conduct and often frustratingly fruitless for sustained periods.  It necessarily requires dedication, self discipline, controlled imagination, clarity of thought, and stamina for damned hard work, and sometimes this requisite combination lies uncomfortably beyond the frail capacities, drive, inclination or personal interest of any given human being.Each of us is made of different stuff.  We all possess different skills, inclinations and interests, and thankfully each’s different capability helps complement each other’s.  We are not equal in specific abilities, thankfully, and socialism is not going to make us so.  That’s precisely why Marx adopted the old Saint Simonian catch cry “from each according to ability to each according to needs”.But big-C Communism seeks to make us different folks conform.  It wants to homogenize our scientific thinking, even the essentially vague musings or playful ideas of exploratory scientists.  Why so thorough?  Why total surveillance?The big-C reason for controlling scientific thought is to tame it, to emasculate it, to ensure that it is never subversive of big-C society.  For idealists, thought is the ideal “substance” of material being and, consequently, thought brings with it the ever-present fear that it is the harbinger of action, and so potentially the harbinger of reaction.LBird may object to being called an idealist thinker, but there is no serious doubting that his readings of the young Marx have thoroughly steered, and parked, himself into this actual position, even if he prefers to masquerade as an overt syncretist, the easiest thought position to hide idealism under, because it is no commitment at all.  Syncretism, as supposedly genuine thought about the relation of being-and-thought, is actually empty of any serious thought content [Hegel].Interestingly, the even younger Marx, in his university dissertation, passed the most terrifyingly withering judgement upon syncretism I’ve ever read, hurled against that juristic master of it, Cicero.  Even juvenile Marx was never a syncretist, whatever LBird may conclude to the contrary from Marx’s later juvenilia of the 1840s, by which time he was a committed materialist.To repeat, no-one can possibly doubt, from LBird’s contributions here, that his overt arguments are proudly idealist and, concomitantly, unflinchingly anti-materialist.Of course, LBird syncretistically bandies around the regulation materialist phrases so as to pacify the mob, and thereby establish credentials of some sort that satisfies his self esteem, but he actually repudiates materialist thought as being beneath his very own elitist contempt, as suitable only for those ignorant pedants, the hidebound Engelsians, who are responsible for ruining everything.  Oh Dühring, meet your adequate avenger.Have I misrepresented you?Your ExplanationLBird’s explanation is as follows.  Big-C Communists abhor any form of elite thought because big-C is necessarily idealist, and thought necessarily precipitates action, and so elite social thought necessarily precipitates elite social action.  Consequently, big-C must control elite social thought in order to pre-empt control of society by elite thinkers.What drivel for a society in which the material means of production are commonly owned and democratically controlled.  If society based upon common ownership and democratic control can’t generate social cooperation as a rational mode of human behaviour then nothing else can, and socialism can never succeed because you cannot enforce human cooperation against its will, except by compulsion.Cooperation must be the rational outcome of necessary social practice [just as now anti-cooperation is the rational outcome of necessary social practice].To return to big-C.  It fears control of society by which elite?  By elite scientists, of course.  Possibly the world-weary seers fictionalized benignly by Jules Verne, or more likely those impossibly malign megalomaniacs of the pulp Ian Fleming variety.  These pulp megalomaniacs are the feared alter egos of big-C Communists.Have I misrepresented you?Paranoia of VoluntarismBeing a proud syncretist, you are necessarily a defiant political voluntarist.Voluntarism and idealism [especially when veiled beneath overt syncretism] are perfect bedfellows.  Voluntaristic thought is the adequate expression of idealism in politics.  And syncretic rationalization is the perfect soporific to lead blind voluntaristic followers into political romanticism.Big-C Communism is to be born out of political voluntarism, thought which is ipso facto able to inspire and precipitate action which can transcend the determinism of the being it seeks to change.  Heroic political voluntarism inevitably taints big-C forever, and holds it in thrall to continuing thoughts of heroic counter-political voluntarism.Consequently, your big-C has no choice but treat specialist thought it doesn’t comprehend with suspicion, as potentially conspiratorial, exactly as occurred to Robespierre, Lenin, etc.  Non-conformity becomes the indicator of conspiracy, and so breeds suppression of thought.Big-C claims to be different.  It implements social control of thought for our own good, and for the noblest of reasons — to keep big-C society in tact.  But so did all the others.  Do you, like them, envisage a police force and military-style surveillance to enforce it?  Or do you envisage milder, more considerate, big-C vigilante mobs of thought police?And if division-of-labour, or elite, thought is socially destabilizing, what about equally, division-of-labour, or elite, philosophical thought, which includes morality and religion, and the latter necessarily encompasses atheism?  Will big-C society determine how we all should think about them?What about aesthetics?  Will big-C society feel equally threatened by provocative art, literature, music, theatre?.  Will big-C society homogenize elite art and make it safe for big-C society?We are not talking about general discussion.  We are talking about your general control, or reign of terror, the historical type indicator of paranoia attendant upon any voluntaristic social revolution.In your case, this reign of terror takes on an especially pathological form, when hatched and provisioned in the fertile mind of a covert idealist before the revolution.You proclaim revolutionary voluntarism as the “progressive” side of voluntarism but, once achieved, big-C must fear voluntarism’s “regressive” side, for voluntarism is dual-edged thought.  If we can create big-C society voluntaristically, we can equally uncreate it, voluntaristically, through reaction, subversion, or just simply by moving beyond it.Your democratic remedy — the only one available to voluntaristic idealism — is consequently democratic control of thought itself, the very substance of voluntaristic idealism.  The intellectual core of our being.Sure, as democratic, the social act of policing scientific thought might seem remarkably benign, and so totally unobjectionable, but it is human thought, after all, that we are dealing with here.Scientific thought is the most subversive thing we humans possess.  And it is determined by social practice.  Thought that does not accord with necessary social practice will be necessarily weeded out in the necessary process of social practice.  Socially shackled thought, bred by social practice, will always break its bonds.  Such thought is ultimately uncontrollable.Thankfully the history of mankind confirms this.  Human thought is the social indicator of the human practice that engenders it.  If human practice is forced to shackle thought, then human practice must already be socially shackled.  Such shackling of society may accord with big-C practice, but it is not socialist practice.In championing human thought, you are forced to shackle it.  That is the Achilles heel of your idealist voluntarism.

[Author]

Posts