LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Wez wrote: “Thanks to LBird (and I don’t often get to say that) I have revisited the debate concerning the nature of science and in the absence of any agreed definition…”
.
Your thanks duly noted.I’ve certain tried for years to promote a “debate concerning the nature of science”, especially about its contemporary ‘elite’ nature, and the requirement for a democratic input to any ‘revolutionary science’ that Marx argued for, but, as you say, there is still an “absence of any agreed definition”, not just amongst ‘scientists’ themselves, but also amongst supposedly ‘democratic socialists’.
I think that this debate would require some clarification prior to evaluating Freud’s theories.
Lew wrote:
.
“L Bird wrote:
‘Clearly, I believe that Marx argued for a ‘revolutionary science’In the past I have drawn attention to Bird’s inability to cite evidence. Here yet again he is using quotation marks to suggest he is quoting Marx.”
.
Marx wrote: “From this moment, science, which is a product of the historical movement, has associated itself consciously with it, has ceased to be doctrinaire and has become revolutionary.”https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/quotes/index.htm
Bijou Drains wrote:
“Who knows, L Bird might even arrange a vote about it.”
Nah, not on this site, mate.
They’re all politically, philosophically, ideologically and methodologically, opposed to democracy!Wez wrote: “LBird – I’m a big fan of Feyerabend so I would be interested in what he has to say about Popper’s Falsifiability theory.”
Preface, and rest of text of book:
Hope this helps.
Lew wrote:
“LBird wrote:
“any ‘science’ worth its name within a socialist society will be democratic, not the preserve of a self-appointed elite, like, for example, Freud.Or, indeed, the SPGB.’.
Or, indeed, L Bird. Since you have no democratic mandate for this assertion, this is another ejaculation from a self-appointed elite.”
You’re making a strange argument, Lew, that a demand for democracy is somehow not democratic.
It’d make more sense for you to refute my argument for ‘democratic science’ with an outline of who you think should be in control of any ‘science’ within a democratic socialist society.
For example, you could argue in favour of individual ‘experts’, or of an organised ‘elite’, or that ‘science’ is ‘non-political’, or you could even argue that within socialism, there won’t be any democracy.
Clearly, I believe that Marx argued for a ‘revolutionary science’, and given his democratic belief that only the proletariat could create their own ‘socialism’, that a ‘revolutionary science’ would be democratically control.
Of course, perhaps you disagree with Marx, and have a different view of ‘science’ – if this is the case, please outline your own position.
DJP wrote: “Perhaps we’ve already been over this, when LBird used to visit?”
I still do visit, from time to time.
Relating to this thread, I’m right behind Bijou Drain’s position.
Furthermore, Popper has been demolished by Feyerabend, Lakatos and many others, who’ve I’ve quoted many times.
And just to keep you happy, DJP, I’ll finish by reiterating that ‘materialism’ is an 18th century throwback, overthrown by Marx’s social theory and practice (idealism-materialism, in your terms), which ensures that any ‘science’ worth its name within a socialist society will be democratic, not the preserve of a self-appointed elite, like, for example, Freud.
Or, indeed, the SPGB.
‘Scientific Truth’ should be a democratic construct, and can, as Marx said, ‘change’.
Bijou Drains wrote: “Crystal Palace 4 Man Utd 0
I’ve been laughing like a drain for about 3 hours!”
Even the repellent ones have shared your joy!
Thomas More wrote: “Loneliness can often… actually be preferable…”
I think that The Guardian article is arguing against precisely that conclusion.
The social production of ‘loneliness’ (and by implication other so-called ‘individual psychological’ states)?
DJP wrote: “In his later work about the Russian Mir, it actually looks like he thought otherwise.”
In relation to this issue, I can recommend “Marx and Russia: The Fate of a Doctrine” by James D. White.
Of course, even looking at this issue, raises the question of Marx’s ‘materialism’, and the development of his views.
A development that clearly diverged from Plekhanov and Lenin (and arguably Engels, even Marx’s own earlier views).
BD, I think most Liverpool fans are prepared to give Alonso a few years to settle, because he knows what’s required, and neither he nor us knows yet whether he can make the ‘big jump’. Klopp was given time, and he came as an outsider, unlike Alonso. It’s a risk, but what new manager wouldn’t be?
As for Lenin, I too “think we should let the old conspirator to rot without comment”, and HIS IDEAS, too.
Ooops… you can’t go THAT far, eh? [joke]
I broadly agree with what you’ve posted, Bijou Drains, and I’m sure you can guess with what unposted issues I’d disagree with you.
I’m inclined to let Almamater have his thread back, as he wishes, and leave undiscussed why the SPGB agree with Lenin, regarding those unposted issues.
Thanks for your comradely post.
Almamater wrote: “I came to the conclusion that we do not need philosophy and philosophers, and that Marx left philosophy and dialectic in some period of his life, and for me, he is an anthropologist instead of a philosopher.”
Fine.
So why engage in philosophical debates with those Marxists who ‘come to the conclusion’ that discussing Marx’s politics and philosophy is fundamental to understanding Marx?
And I’ve not insulted, sub-estimated or denigrated anyone, not even you, on this thread.
I’m interested in why Lenin is considered by many supposed ‘Marxists’ to be a follower of Marx, when any reading and comparison of Marx’s and Lenin’s respective political philosophies shows no link at all.
But… some links can be shown between Lenin and Engels… don’t you find that curious?
And… that the SPGB, although denigrating (correctly, in my view) Lenin, also seem to share some of those links between Lenin and Engels?
Further, ONE of those links seems to be a sharing of Lenin’s method of attacking the man, not the ball, in political and philosophical debates.
Or, was that a trait of both Engels AND Marx themselves? If so, is it a good practice to continue? Does it further comradely discussions between democratic socialists?
