[Brian]

LBird wrote:

   Once more, it’s my opinion that ‘science’ and ‘the market’ are the central bastions of bourgeois authority, and that production, both scientific and economic, must be put under our democratic control.One of the things that I find attractive about the SPGB is its insistence on ‘democracy’, and that the class, not a party or sect, should be the final arbiters of all decisions that affect our world society. Within this scope, I include ‘science’, and I’m hoping that comrades, perhaps given some further explanations, discussions and study, will also come to take this position.

That 'hope' you allude to has always been evident on this thread.  In fact I doubt if there is one poster who does not agree that all advances in science and indeed the scientific method itself will come under the democratic control of a socialist society.  Evidently before we even start treading down that path the class as a whole have to reach a basic agreement and understanding on what the 'scientific method' actually consists of.However, what is also evident is your insistence that we all read Schaff and those who just can't be bothered (like myself) are labeled with disparaging remarks.  Again its so obvious that your attraction towards Schaff is bordering on idolatry and therefore you are not applying critical thinking in a robustic manner towards him.  I fear that until you personally drop your hostility clause by replying to the last post by twc in a comradely fashion this thread is going to dry up with posters applying a no comment to your posts.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

So it appears that LBird has dug himself into a corner where conciousness has no material base. Which from whatever angle means its a logical fallacy.

I can't believe that this nonsense still has legs!If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times! The object exists outside of, and prior to, the subject. How many more times can I say this?The question we're trying to discuss, is 'how does the subject understand the object?'.

Brian wrote:

That's me thinking for myself.

No, it isn't! You're just repeating what society has told you, all your life! It's the myth of modern science, that the object presents itself unbidden to the subject.

Brian wrote:

And means that logically our brain is not set in a vacuum for it requires something to think about which ultimately comes from our experience and practice of reproducing the species in a given environment.

Yes, the 'object' for us comes from our experience aand practice! You are right!

Brian wrote:

This interaction between stimilus and response provokes thoughts and theories on what action and reaction is possible and also probable.

No, no, no!We choose what 'stimuli' (from an infinite stream) to 'respond' to, by 'selection'.The notion that 'practice' produces 'theories' is induction. If you are an inductivist, say so, and we can progress the discussion.

Brian wrote:

And when a scientific mindset of a historical period develops the knowledge and understanding that a theory is found to be tainted by the political ideology of the ruling class they decide its time to put our collective thinking caps on.

All 'science' is 'tainted' by humans. It's a human activity. There is no 'passive' route to the 'object'. Science means thinking. Thinking is human.We won't get to the root of this, comrades, until those who disagree with Schaff,OUTLINE THE THEORY OF COGNITION WHICH THEY THEMSELVES ARE EMPLOYING.Brian, which theory of cognition do you use? If you are not selecting, how do you cope with innumerable sense impressions? Why are you not overwhelmed by sensation?

According to LBird I'm both right and wrong.  On the question of what theory of cognition do I use is for my way of thinking or particular mindset, its a hard one to grasp but also a very difficult one to answer in a definitive sense.  Because firstly, with all due (self)respect my actual method of cognition in use at a particular moment in time depends on a whole host of factors like: mood; interest; enjoyment; awareness; knowledge; understanding; skills; experience; etc, etc.  Obviously, these factors filter or if you prefer select which food of thought tickles my fancy at a given moment in time.  Otherwise I would be so submerged in usless and useful information my mind would just automatically switch off by not listening to those countless messages of maybe's, if and buts.  Thank fuck for filters I say!Secondly, I prefer this situation because it allows me not to participate in the silly business of self-labelling.  Last but not least it provides a certain amount of autonomy and flexibiity through induction and deduction what particular sensation fits in with my experience of being a member of the working class.However, you have my permission to apply a label to whatever particular method of cognition you may think is appropriate to the responses above.  After all is said and done it appears your own particular method of cognition is in a better position to answer that question than I am?Having said that and in all honesty, I'm very comfortable with the present situation, so I don't expect any changes in the forseeable future.  Unless of course the revolutionary process goes up a gear sometime tomorrow.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Since we’re trading ‘Marx quotes’:

Karl Marx, The German Ideology, wrote:

This method of approach is not devoid of premises. It starts out from the real premises and does not abandon them for a moment.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm

Karl Marx, EPM, wrote:

But also when I am active scientifically, etc… then my activity is social, because I perform it as a man. Not only is the material of my activity given to me as a social product (as is even the language in which the thinker is active): my own existence is social activity, and therefore that which I make of myself, I make of myself for society and with the consciousness of myself as a social being.My general consciousness is only the theoretical shape of that of which the living shape is the real community, the social fabric, although at the present day general consciousness is an abstraction from real life and as such confronts it with hostility. The activity of my general consciousness, as an activity, is therefore also my theoretical existence as a social being.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm'Not devoid of premises'.'the material of my activity [is] given to me as a social product', 'as is even language'.For Marx, something precedes practice. 'Premises' are 'given'.But, really, trading quotes is no substitute for comrades thinking for themselves, now, in this century, using the advances of the last 150 years since Marx wrote, made by both Communists and bourgeois philosophers

It appears there's a division over "I think therefore I am" and "I am therefore I think".  So it appears that LBird has dug himself into a corner where conciousness has no material base.  Which from whatever angle means its a logical fallacy.That's me thinking for myself. And means that logically our brain is not set in a vacuum for it requires something to think about which ultimately comes from our experience and practice of reproducing the species in a given environment.  This interaction between stimilus and response provokes thoughts and theories on what action and reaction is possible and also probable. And when a scientific mindset of a historical period develops the knowledge and understanding that a theory is found to be tainted by the political ideology of the ruling class they decide its time to put our collective thinking caps on.

[Brian]

Big hug to the author(s) for the previous post for summarising so succinctly the basic agreements and diasagreements so far in this thread.   What an improvement on past posts by twc – please keep it up!

[Brian]

ralfy wrote:

ALB wrote:

This seems a bit pedantic. I would have thought that it made sense to discuss all aspects of "peak oil" on one thread.

That's what I am doing, but I don't think you understand even the basics of this issue, which is why I had to address your first post by raising points that you did not consider. AFAIK, you did not counter any of my arguments and still believe that "doomsayers" are wrong. Given that, wouldn't it be pedantic to ask for solutions for a problem that you insist does not exist?

ralfy wrote:

ALB wrote:

This is not just a dialogue between you and me. I may have started this thread but there are others on this forum who probably won't take the same position as me (in fact I was assuming some won't) and will be interested in hearing your solution to the problem you and they perceive.

The way I see it, this is not a debatable issue, unless there is something that I stated earlier that you still question. Otherwise, I will wait and see if you acknowledge peak oil as a problem. That is the only way for me to see your request for solutions as relevant.

I've implied previously that I for one – having followed the argument for several years – are interested in this subject.  But I do not place any trust in the evidence from both sides.  On the one hand OPEC and other major oil producers will never reveal the real reasons for any decrease in production capacity. Therefore all the so called evidence that oil production has peaked (or is on the verge of peaking) are based on present consumption figures and the assumption that oil well pressure is falling globally due to wells running dry. Obviously, through having being denied the true figures the doomsayers are on rocky ground when moving the argument from reaching an assumption and then making a conclusion.  Which means in effect their predictions are all based on possible problems and not probable problems.Nevertheless, despite the lack of accurate science I am prepared in this instance to give the doomsayers the benefit of the doubt.  Because being a socialists its in my interest to be prepared for such an eventuality possibly occurring. And more importantly so I'm in a position to counter the negative solutions which undoubtedly are on offer.To date ralfy agreed that there is no solution for peak oil within the framework of capitalism but  nevertheless has failed to agree that a solution is to be found within the socialist system advocated by the wsm/spgb.  I have to assume, therefore he has his own solution but is keeping it under wraps in his own self-interest. To adopt such a fence sitting attitude does nothing to move the discussion forward and ultimately places the discussion locked in the time warp of the 1970's with all the scaremongering of the end of growth, etc.That said and if I'm correct ralfy is also on very rocky ground simply due to the fact that any solution he may have on offer needs to go through a rigrious and robust examination to ensure its not just another logical fallacy and before its in danger of falling into the trap of self-delusion.

[Brian]

ralfy wrote:

Finally, I never believed that "the present world capitalist system" will solve the problem of peak oil. If any, I explained that the same system will fall apart because of such a problem. 

That capitalism "will fall apart" over peak oil is debatable and depends on whether or not a majority stop supporting capitalism and start deciding on a valid alternative.  Peak oil is of course proving to be a problem for energy reserves within capitalism but capitalism thrives on such problems and although oil reserves may well take a hammering (if as suggested in the link) by 2020 whilst a majority accept the myth of TINA capitalism will continue to exploit every opportunity market contradictions throws up.  Obviously when that hammering starts to have a major effect it will be the 99% who'll suffer the most.Based on the historical evidence of how previous societies transformed themselves it took more than one failure of production to bring the revolutionary process into being.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What new has been learned by anyone?

You asked for some 'explanation' of the issues, ajj.I've given an analogy of an 'NHS computer system' – did this help you, at all? I've not had much feedback, except for a comment by Brian.It's hard to judge whether the thread has been of any use, unless some other posters (not the main contributors) make an assessment.

All I've observed so far is a discussion on the meaningfulness of the terms used and the social interaction which follows.  There has been quite a few definitions thrown in the pot but alas very few agreements on these definitions.Obviously this is a very difficult subject to discuss let alone to debate and having skimmed through this thread several times I can only come to the conclusion that at this stage the pros and cons need to be established and summarised.  Otherwise its in danger of sidetracking into sociological perspectives like symbol interaction.Personally I'm of the opinion that such discussions are necessary in respect that the working class need to develop and create the philosophical/scientific arguments for itself. 

[Brian]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Over 200 posts on this thread and a score or more on the earlier.Can i ask these questionsHas anybody's position changed? Has anyone conceded ground? What new has been learned by anyone? Is the materialist case on science and truth now better positioned to take on the non-socialist critics by the fruits of exchange? DJP, can you make a pamphlet out of the discussion? 

I agree. Time someone summarised the agreements and disagreements before you proceed any further?

[Brian]

ALB wrote:

Obviously, in a socialist society "science policy" will be decided democratically and scientific research institutes run democratically.

But that should not be a reason to curtail this discussion.   Especially when it seems to be providing the bare bones for further discussion to take place in the run up to the establishment of a socialist society.  Besides its providing the basis for a rewrite of the education bulletin, which for any scientific minded person is long over due.Stick with it I say if only because its providing some useful insights on what exactly is the "scientific method".

[Brian]

Thanks for that.  However, it seems to me you are assuming that knowledge by default = understanding.  This is not always necessarily so because we have come across endless "scientific experts" who seem to possess the 'knowledge' but fail miserably when providing an understanding of that knowledge.  Indeed when they are reminded that change is a constant they visibly shrink at the thought that their 'knowledge'  could effectively become redundant with the paradigm shift in understanding.

[Brian]

dweenlander wrote:

ALB,Yes, it really is. It relates primarily to the work of post-war Marxist theorists and their often dismissive attitudes towards post-war Marxist historiography which challenged their notion of a revolutionary working class. E.P Thompson’s Poverty of Theory was a particularly bad-tempered, although brilliant, jeremiad aimed at theoreticians in this debate. I am eager to move my analysis and understanding in this area forward, and I would be hugely appreciative of future discussions on this and other areas of theory with you and other comrades.  

The ball is in your court in this respect.  Just set up the thread and I for one hope it turns out to be a positive discussion.  With this thread well and truly off topic need I say more?

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

 I think defining what we consider to be the 'objective' conditions is at the heart of the issue with Alf and the ICC. I think that this definition of what conditions exactly are 'objective' has political implications about the timing, nature, extent and purposes of the revolution.PS. I think I agree with the rest of the political points that you make.

Its not only the political implications to consider during the revolutionary process.   For such a process  contains the economical, social and cultural elements which will also be undergoing transformation.  Nevertheless, despite these implications the speed and pace of the process will ultimately depend on the objective conditions being defined under the banner of class interests.That is, until the workers become conscious of their conditions and circumstances they will remain a class in its self.  Which is an objective condition on its own. It follows, whilst the producers of wealth are ignorant of the objective conditions  so any unity of purpose remains elusive.

[Brian]

steve colborn wrote:

 "I will go further, I will guarentee, that I will abide by what is deemed, good comradely behaviour and is expected of "comrades". "What more can I say? As I have said, I can do, moreover say, no more!  I cannot make my intentions any clearer than this.Steve Colborn. 

I'm not talking about "guarantees" wrapped up in an ambigious generalisation but a specific statement of intent to use the democratic procedures available to all users.

[Brian]

I have yet to see any communication or statement to the effect that in future you intend using the democratic procedures available in pursuance of a complaint on the moderation of the forum.  

[Brian]

Hud955 wrote:

There seems to be an ongoing disagreement about what is and isn't Zeitgiest.  Before this meeting I asked a Zeitgeist representative whether Federico was speaking on behalf of the movement or for himself and was told he was speaking for the Zeitgeist movement.  When I introduced him in these terms, Federico corrected me and said that he was speaking for himself.  In a previous debate we had with a Zeitgeist speaker we were given a similarly personal account (focused on the banking system).  And again, when I attended a talk in London by a guy billed as the TZM Education Co-ordinator (or something similar, I forget exactly) he spent a great deal of time talking about the Venus Project as though the two organisations were still linked.  So, would the real Zeitgeist movement please stand up!

The debate with Federico was on his book and although the contents of the book have a connection to the TZM 'train of thought' the debate was arranged directly with Federico and not through the TZM London Chapter.   I agree that pinning down what exactly this 'train of thought' consists of is difficult and on times confusing due to the various interpretations and level of understanding individual 'members' may have of the Activist Orientation Guide (which is yet incomplete).But much the same thing could be said about the Marxian train of thought in that the debate and discussion will always be on going and subject to the present conditions and circumstances.  In effect what is occurring with the advent of TZM is that you have numerous people from around the globe who have come together to express their dissatisfaction with the current mode of production under the banner of a social movement to complain, criticize and condemn the inequalities perpetuated by the private ownership of the means of living.  Nevertheless, they do not see themselves as representing a political challenge to the status quo.  And this is where much of the confusion arises in their particular 'train of thought' in reference to using the political process to bring about the change they seek. 

[Author]

Posts