The passive epistemology of materialism
- This topic has 17 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
For reference, for those interested – another author found, with whom I have some agreement about Engels' 'materialism'. A book worth a read.
Miller, p. 116, wrote:The passive tendency of orthodox Marxism resulted in a practical passivity, most clearly visible in the work of Karl Kautsky. Kautsky agreed with Plekhanov that "modern socialist consciousness can arise only on the basis of profound scientific knowledge." But the average workingman could obviously make no claim to such "profound scientific knowledge"; therefore, "the vehicles of science are not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia." It followed that "socialist consciousness is something introduced into the proletarian class struggle from without, and not something that arose within it spontaneously." A passive epistemology here led to the very division of society "into two parts, one of which is superior to society" that Marx had warned against in his 1845 critique of the contemplative bias in traditional materialism.[my bold]
Miller, James. History and Human Existence – From Marx to Merleau-Ponty. Berkeley: Universityof California Press, c1979. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft2489n82k/
Another Trojan horse to bring the all repeated arguments in this forum. We have already discussed that conception which is the vanguard party. It is nothing new. Members of this forum do not waste your time with the same repetition
mcolome1 wrote:We have already discussed that conception which is the vanguard party.I'm glad that you're admitting it, mcolome1.
This is really old hat. Why drag a ‘Miller’? Lenin infamously used that quote in ‘What Is To Be Done’ https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm
Strategy and Tactics of the Class StruggleA Private Circulation Letter from Marx and Engels, (First drafted by Engels)We cannot, therefore, go along with people who openly claim that the workers are too ignorant to emancipate themselves but must first be emancipated from the top down, by the philanthropic big and petty bourgeois. Should the new party organ take a position that corresponds with the ideas of those gentlemen, become bourgeois and not proletarian, then there is nothing left for us, sorry as we should be to do so, than to speak out against it publicly and dissolve the solidarity within which we have hitherto represented the German party abroad. But we hope it will not come to that. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1879/09/17.htm
Dave B wrote:Strategy and Tactics of the Class StruggleA Private Circulation Letter from Marx and Engels, (First drafted by Engels)We cannot, therefore, go along with people who openly claim that the workers are too ignorant to emancipate themselves but must first be emancipated from the top down, by the philanthropic big and petty bourgeois. Should the new party organ take a position that corresponds with the ideas of those gentlemen, become bourgeois and not proletarian, …[my bold]But the SPGB 'openly claims' that only an elite can determine 'truth', that only an elite of 'specialists' can control physics, maths, logic, all science, and, contrary to Marx's arguments for the self-emancipation of the proletariat by democratic political methods, that 'the workers are too ignorant' and must be 'emancipated from the top down' by 'disinterested scientists'.The SPGB posters here have openly opposed the democratic control of production of truth, and have insisted that only an elite of 'specialists' have access to 'Truth', by using a 'politically neutral' method, which cannot allow voting by the majority.
Quote:…then there is nothing left for us, sorry as we should be to do so, than to speak out against it publicly and dissolve the solidarity within which we have hitherto represented the German party abroad. But we hope it will not come to that.[my bold] Yes, like Engels, I used to 'hope it will not come to that', but 'there is nothing left for us' Democratic Communists, who insist, like Marx, that only the producers can democratically create their world, 'than to speak out against it publicly'.The SPGB has stopped even trying to justify their anti-democratic 'materialism', and seeks instead to attack me personally, and avoid engaging with a political debate about the democratic control of science.If that's the method the SPGB wants to adopt, then fine, but I'll keep posting recommendations for reading, for those readers who wish to dig deeper into these political issues. It's up to readers to follow up on them or not. I know that the 'faithful' of Religious Materialism won't do so, and that they'll retain their faith in 'matter', rather than adopt a faith in the democratic proletariat. But to those who still retain some critical senses, the options are there.Miller is only one of many.
LBird wrote:But the SPGB 'openly claims' that only an elite can determine 'truth',No, it odesn't Lbird would be unable to provide any evidence that it does.
LBird wrote:that only an elite of 'specialists' can control physics, maths, logic, all science, and, contrary to Marx's arguments for the self-emancipation of the proletariat by democratic political methods, that 'the workers are too ignorant' and must be 'emancipated from the top down' by 'disinterested scientists'.No it doesn't, and Lbird can provide no evidence that it does.
LBird wrote:The SPGB posters here have openly opposed the democratic control of production of truth, and have insisted that only an elite of 'specialists' have access to 'Truth', by using a 'politically neutral' method, which cannot allow voting by the majority.No party member has argued this, and Lbird will be unable to provide any evidence to this effect.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:But the SPGB 'openly claims' that only an elite can determine 'truth',No, it odesn't Lbird would be unable to provide any evidence that it does.
Well, let's try once again.For the SPGB, 'who' or 'what' determines 'truth'?My answer, as a Democratic Communist, is that only the democratic, revolutionary, class conscious proletariat can determine its 'truth'.Every time that I've asked, the SPGB, which employs 'materialism', answers 'matter'. You openly state that you won't allow a vote on 'matter'.
YMS wrote:LBird wrote:that only an elite of 'specialists' can control physics, maths, logic, all science, and, contrary to Marx's arguments for the self-emancipation of the proletariat by democratic political methods, that 'the workers are too ignorant' and must be 'emancipated from the top down' by 'disinterested scientists'.No it doesn't, and Lbird can provide no evidence that it does.
Why does the SPGB then keep saying that an elite of 'Specialists' must determine their 'Speciality'?For Democratic Communists, who argue that only the producers can determine what they produce, any elected 'Specialists' must explain their 'Specialism' to everybody else, and so the 'Generalists', the vast majority, must themselves determine the 'Specialism'.So, we openly state that physics, maths, logic, all science must be under our democratic control. There is no elite who know things that the rest of us can't.
YMS wrote:LBird wrote:The SPGB posters here have openly opposed the democratic control of production of truth, and have insisted that only an elite of 'specialists' have access to 'Truth', by using a 'politically neutral' method, which cannot allow voting by the majority.No party member has argued this, and Lbird will be unable to provide any evidence to this effect.
You all argue that 'science' has a politically neutral method, because otherwise you'd have to argue, as Marxists do, that 'science is a powerful social activity' and so is fundamentally political. Within a democratic society like Socialism, all 'power' would be under democratic control.It's very easy for the SPGB to agree that all production within Socialism will be democratic, but for some reason it doesn't.The best I seem to be able to get out of the SPGB is that they'll deign to allow workers to control 'widget production' in 'factories'.But once 'knowledge' and 'academia' are mentioned… well, it's just bluster by the SPGB. And poorly educated bluster, at that.That's what comes from remaining within the 19th century, and espousing 'Religious Materialism', an ideology suited to 'elite production', and as such was also espoused by Lenin.Why the SPGB does this, I don't know. But when I try to engage the SPGB in a discussion, I'm either personally abused or banned.All I can continue to do, whilst allowed, is to offer reading recommendations and links, to those who might be minded to follow up on these issues, because they are concerned that the SPGB is unable to answer my questions.The real problem is your Faith In Matter.My Faith is in the Democratic Producers, as was Marx's.If you think Marx and I were wrong, that's fine by me. Then we can progress the debate, and discover just who or what is your alternative to the Democratic Producers controlling the social production of 'truth'.
Lbird has no evidence that the Socialist Party 'openly claims' that only an elite can determine 'truth'Lbird has no evidence that the Socialist Party keeps saying that an elite of 'Specialists' must determine their 'Speciality'?Lbird has produced no evidence that SPGB posters here have openly opposed the democratic control of production of truth, and have insisted that only an elite of 'specialists' have access to 'Truth', by using a 'politically neutral' method, which cannot allow voting by the majorityAnd the above response proves that. All Lbirds claims above are Aunt Sallies.
As I expected, there's no reply to political questions by YMS.But then, I already knew, from years of asking, that there wouldn't be, from any of the Religious Materialists. They can't answer these political questions, because their ideology prevents them doing so.But, there must be SPGB members and supporters out there who can see that there is a genuine political issue at stake, here. And really, it's to those who I'm addressing my posts.That is, to critical thinkers, not Religious Materialists. Those who think that any power in Socialism will be under democratic control, and not under the control of an elite of 'Specialists', who supposedly have a 'Special Consciousness' that the rest of us don't, and supposedly have a 'politically neutral' method which is available to 'Special Individuals', who are 'politically disinterested', and pretend to be concerned with 'The Truth' of 'Out There'.It's all bourgeois ideology, and can be located socio-historically.The Religious Materialists, of course, don't talk about society or history – social production, and its changes over time.For the Religious Materialists, 'Matter Is Eternal'. 'Matter' is their god, and they have Faith.That's why democracy provides so great a problem for them – they claim to already 'Know Matter', and won't have workers having the power to tell them otherwise.Whereas, Democratic Communists insist that the 'existence', or not, of 'matter' is an issue for the democratic producers who produce 'matter'. They can change 'matter', if their needs, interests and purposes change. Science is social production, not 'revelatory discovery by an elite'. What humans create, they can change.
Reminder: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).
Perhaps we need the help of Captain Metaphysics:http://existentialcomics.com/comic/182
LBird wrote:Yes, like Engels, I used to 'hope it will not come to that', but 'there is nothing left for us' Democratic Communists, who insist, like Marx, that only the producers can democratically create their world, 'than to speak out against it publicly'.Then surely you are proposing that the "truth" is decided upon by an elite, i.e. the producers. what about the non-productive, people with disabilites, those who have retired from productive taks, etc. "democratic communists" exclude them fromt his process?
It looks like some members of this do not learn, or they want to waste their time. If you continue answering or posting message about this repeated topics you are just feeding the troll, We have discussed the same topics several times in this forum,
Tim Kilgallon wrote:LBird wrote:Yes, like Engels, I used to 'hope it will not come to that', but 'there is nothing left for us' Democratic Communists, who insist, like Marx, that only the producers can democratically create their world, 'than to speak out against it publicly'.Then surely you are proposing that the "truth" is decided upon by an elite, i.e. the producers. what about the non-productive, people with disabilites, those who have retired from productive taks, etc. "democratic communists" exclude them fromt his process?
I'm not sure what ideology you're using to understand the concept 'producers', Tim, and why you think that 'production' is done by an 'elite', alone. If you do believe this, but you've kept it hidden all this time, then it will explain a lot about your difficulty in understanding Marx.For Marx, all humans are 'producers'.If you're serious about discussing this, I'll do so, but if you're just taking the piss, as usual, then I'll have to just ignore you, as usual.The ball's in your court.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.