LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Once more, to try to help clarify the issue…
… you mention ‘astrophysics’. And then go on to ask questions based on this concept.
But, given that the commencement of democratic communism, a new, revolutionary, mode of production, will produce a ‘revolutionary science’ which will replace ‘[bourgeois] science’, how can one predict that the discipline of ‘astrophysics’ will not be replaced by a more ‘unified’, interdisciplinary, ‘science’, which has different categories of study, compared to present-day ‘science’?
It might be retained; it might not be. It might be partially kept/transformed/replaced (aufheben/sublated).
This determination can only be made by those actively involved in socially producing their new mode of production, by democratic methods.
So, your political, philosophical and ideological assumption about ‘astrophysics’ can be questioned.
I hope this helps clarify the depth of these problems.
Again, to politically and philosophically answer your questions, robbo, which I think that many/most non-democrats will have about ‘democratic communism’, we need to resolve what assumptions are behind those questions.
It’s like someone demanding – ‘Just answer the question – if I’m not going to Heaven to be with God, where will I be going after death? You must mean to Hell with Lucifer!‘
It’s impossible to ‘just answer’, without discussing the various assumptions (life of some sort continues after death) and concepts (Heaven, Hell, God, Lucifer).
If we have differing assumptions, our answers are going to be different.
It makes sense, surely, to state our assumptions, link our concepts to those assumptions, and compare and contrast our conflicting answers.
robbo203 wrote: “Sigh. Once again LBird – of course I hold that communism would be “democratically organised”. I just don’t believe democracy can and should be extended to the origination and validation of scientific theories. Please stop mispresenting me!!!”
I’m not ‘misrepresenting’ you, robbo.
I argue: “I hold that communism would be “democratically organised”“.
You argue “I hold that communism would be “democratically organised””
I argue ‘scientific theories’ are socially produced.
You argue ‘scientific theories’ are * produced (I’ve never got you to tell us what * represents).
If something is ‘socially produced’, since ‘I hold that communism would be “democratically organised”’, I argue that social production would be democratically organised.
You seem to argue for, on the one hand, ‘democratically organised’ communism, but on the other, regard ‘scientific theories’ as not part of ‘communism’.
We can’t resolve our differences, and thus answer our political questions of each other, until you give a satisfactory answer to why you regard ‘scientific theories’ as separate from democratic socialist production/ communism.
robbo203 wrote: “What precisely do you mean by “democratic methods must be employed” in the creation of knowledge?”
robbo, don’t you get sick of asking the same question, over and over again, mate?
The statement means what it says, for any worker wanting democratic communism.
You (apparently) don’t want democratic communism, which is fine by me, but means you don’t share my ideology. It would be better for all of us if you did expose your ideology, but that’s up to you to do.
So, I’m a ‘democrat’ and a ‘communist’. A democrat believes that ‘democracy’ is the best political method. A ‘communist’ believes that ‘democracy’ should be employed throughout the communist mode of production. Humanity socially produces its social production, and ‘knowledge’ is an aspect of this social production. Democratic communists do not believe that there is an ‘expert elite’ of humans who know better than the entirety of humanity. Any elected experts can be removed if they fail to follow their mandate.
Now, if anyone doesn’t share these ideological beliefs (which were also Marx’s) of ‘democratic social production’, then they won’t accept that
“ “democratic methods must be employed” in the creation of knowledge“.Most probably, those who don’t hold these revolutionary beliefs will hold others, given to them by the present ruling class. These usually are:
1. individualism.
2. elitism.
3. a minority of ‘clever’, active, individuals contrasted with a majority of ignorant, passive, ‘normals’.
4. ‘science’ is politically-neutral (hence, a fear of ‘politics in science’), carried out by a clever elite, who disinterestedly (ie. in the interests of the whole of humanity) just passively discover ‘reality’ (a ‘reality’ that is not socio-historical, but is ‘just there’ waiting for the disinterested elite to pronounce ‘discovered’).
5. the majority can’t ‘do science’, because it is inherently ‘difficult’ and requires a mysterious language which the majority cannot fathom (bless their little earnest but thick socks!).robbo203 wrote: “Could you tell us once and for all whether this means “scientific theories should all be put to a vote””
It depend whether one believes that there is any source of ‘scientific theories’ outside of a humanity which socially produces its theories, robbo.
I suspect that if anyone hides the fact that they actually believe that a ‘clever, disinterested, elite’ forms the conscious active core of a mostly thick passive humanity (which is just what bourgeois ideology tells us, with its ‘Nobel Prizes’, etc.), then they will claim that ‘scientific theories’ shouldn’t be subject to democratic production.
On my part, as I’ve said, time and time again, ALL SOCIAL PRODUCTION MUST BE DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED. It’s called ‘democratic socialism’, robbo.
Marx wrote: “The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism – which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such.
Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from the thought objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective activity.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm
I know already that you won’t read or understand Marx, BD, but at least other workers who want to read and understand Marx’s social productionism will benefit.
You’d better stick to ‘kicking stones’ as your way to contemplate ‘matter’. It’s the same individualist method as when someone is asked about ‘value’ and replies, not that ‘value’ is a social relationship, but that ‘value’ is what an individual determines, without any socio-historical explanation.
I’ll bet that the ‘materialists’ can’t even see the similarities between the concepts ‘matter’ and ‘value’, and the opposed accounts of them. On one side, the materialists’ individualist passive assimilation of knowledge (they play no part in creating the knowledge, and leave that to the ‘experts’), whilst on the other, the Marxists’ social active production of knowledge (they play an inescapable social role in creating the knowledge, and insist that democratic methods must be employed).
Bijou Drains wrote: “…you state that the only way to reconcile ideal and matter is in conscious human activity.”
No, BD, Marx stated this. I just happen to agree with Marx.
ALB wrote: ” “[Pannekoek wrote:] …the primacy of the experienced material world…”
…In other words, stuff existed before ideas…”
No, ALB, it’s not simply ‘the material world’ (ie. ‘stuff’, or ‘matter’), but ‘the experienced…’.
According to Marx (as we’ve seen from our quotes earlier), any human ‘experience’ requires ‘consciousness’. And according to Marx, this ‘experience’ is not ‘passive’ (as materialists argued), but active (ie. productive, and not individual, but social).
When you separate ‘stuff’ from ‘ideas’, you’re ignoring Marx.
ALB wrote: “there is this quote from Pannekoek which clearly states that ideas are an equal part of the “real world” :
“The human mind is entirely determined by the surrounding real world. We have already said that this world is not restricted to physical matter only, but comprises everything that is objectively observable. The thoughts and ideas of our fellow men, which we observe by means of their conversation or by our reading are included in this real world.””
Yes, I agree with you and Pannekoek, ALB.
But if, as you say, ‘ideas are equal’… surely the ‘physical’ can no more be the basis of ‘ideas’, than ‘ideas’ can be the basis of the ‘physical’?
So, we all reject ‘materialism’ (which claims ‘consciousness’ emerges from ‘matter’), and all reject ‘idealism’ (which claims ‘matter’ emerges from ‘consciousness’).
Marx, Pannekoek, Gorter, etc. argued that we need to account for both ideal and material. They are both part of humanity.
The only way to reconcile ideal and matter is in conscious human activity. Or, social production.
Thus, social production is regarded as the creator of material and ideal. And if we create both, we can change both, which was Marx’s whole point.
And if ‘we’ are to change both, ‘we’ have to define just who ‘we’ are. Marx argued that the only ‘we’ is ‘humanity’, and not a ‘we’ which consists of ‘specialists’ or a scientific elite.
Only we, humanity, can determine our science, and only by democratic methods.
Lenin, and all ‘materialists’, as Marx argued they would, deny that humanity can democratically determine its social products, like its truth, its nature, its reality, etc. ‘Materialists’ argue that only an elite of physicists can determine physics, and they deny that our physics, which we humans create, can be democratic. ‘Materialists’ have to defend an elite.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “Have you addressed the issue i put before you, LBird, that your own form of individualism is the antipathy of social action with you deliberate distancing from contributing to the purpose of transforming fellow-workers into combatants in the class war, preferring to engage in the mere contemplation of philosophical nuances.”
I’ve always done this, alan, and I’ve always told you this, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, other than avoiding the issue of the ‘materialism’ to which you unconsciously adhere.
I’ve been a senior shop steward in a union, and I’ve been a member of the SWP, and I’ve attended numerous anti-fascist events, and whenever I’m in a pub with other workers who express an interest, I’ve talked to them about socialism and Marx. So, no ‘antipathy’ to ‘social action’ on my part.
The philosophical problem here, alan, is that you, like all workers infected with ‘materialism’, think ‘social action’ means ‘action’ (or, ‘practice’, or ‘doing stuff’).
‘Social action’ actually means ‘theory and practice’. Note, ‘theory and practice’. Not ‘practice’ alone, or ‘practice and theory’.
As a member of the SWP, I too was infected with ‘materialism’, and didn’t pay much regard, as you still don’t, to ‘philosophical nuances’. I got my theory, passively, from the party. Thus, I, like all workers infected with ‘materialism’, I was easy meat for the ‘professional revolutionaries’ of the party, who did concern themselves with nuances. The real term for ‘nuance’ is ‘politics’. They held political power over the membership. But, I’ve since learnt, and aim to share the benefits of my experience with other workers, who might be vulnerable to the ‘materialists’.
The upshot is, alan, that any ‘social action’ requires ‘theory’ up front, so that the ‘philosophical nuances’ are well understood and debated, because ‘philosophy’ determines ‘actions’.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “Some of my comrades may find your fixation with Marx and material idealism…”
No, alan, it’s ‘idealism-materialism’, in the order Marx gave it, social theory and practice, social production, consciously changing our world, inescapably linked concepts, not separate ‘material’ and ‘ideal’.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “…would disturb the harmony of Party life…”
Your naivety is touching alan! If I joined, my first task would be to drive ‘materialism’ as an ideology from the party. I’m sure many of the others are clearly aware of that, that my presence would do far more than ‘disturb the harmony’, and so would veto my joining. Which is their right, of course. The point is, I regard ‘materialism’ as a danger to workers and their efforts to build a democratic socialism. ‘Materialism’ has always sabotaged workers efforts, which is why the Leninist parties constantly spew out workers who join (as they did to me and all, in fact, every, other worker that I knew in them).
So, for you, this is a debate about ‘philosophical nuances’, which you admit that you don’t really understand.
I’ve tried to appeal to ‘democracy’ as grounds for discussion and reconciliation, even my joining, but the ‘materialists’ keep insisting that workers will not be allowed to democratically determine their own truth. The ‘materialists’ claim that there is a small elite, who should be allowed to get on with that scientific task, and people like you should keep their ignorant workers’ noses out of things, like physics, that don’t concern you.
For my part, alan, I think that you have to take an interest in these issues. I find your refusal to do so the real ‘individualism’ here. ‘Social action’ requires democracy, not individual ignorance nor elite specialists. And ‘science’ is a ‘social action’.
It’s not too far-fetched, alan, to argue that…
“The purpose of the Socialist Party is not that complicated to comprehend and a 1939 article explains its role.
“The material world demands critical analysis in order that social problems are understood. The solution to those problems must be explained in unambiguous and practical fashion. Working-class problems are material; their solution, Socialism, consists of material proposals.””
…might as well say…
“The purpose of the Socialist Party is not that complicated to comprehend and a 1939 article explains its role.
“The magical world demands critical analysis in order that social problems are understood. The solution to those problems must be explained in unambiguous and practical fashion. Working-class problems are magical; their solution, Socialism, consists of magical proposals.””
The word ‘material’ might as well be the word ‘magical’, as far as you’re concerned. You don’t know what it means, as you’ve admitted many times, because ‘material’ is a philosophical term, not ‘common sense’, and so you’re bewildered by it.
What happens is that you and other workers baffled by ‘material’ assume it means ‘can be touched’, that it’s ‘stuff’ (as opposed to ‘ideas’). This suits the ‘magicians’ (sorry, ‘materialists’), just fine, because you’re not a ‘specialist magician’, which they claim to be.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “The purpose of the Socialist Party is not that complicated to comprehend and a 1939 article explains its role.
“The material world demands critical analysis in order that social problems are understood. The solution to those problems must be explained in unambiguous and practical fashion. Working-class problems are material; their solution, Socialism, consists of material proposals.””
As even ALB agreed earlier, the word ‘material’ can and should be replaced by the word ‘social’. This is an ‘unambiguous and practical’ explanation, which makes it clear that human activity is involved, not ‘matter’. So,
““The social world demands critical analysis in order that social problems are understood. The solution to those problems must be explained in unambiguous and practical fashion. Working-class problems are social; their solution, Socialism, consists of social proposals.””
‘Social’ involves, as Marx (and Gorter) argued, both ideas and the world, both ‘ideal’ and ‘material’. ‘For Marx, ‘material’ doesn’t mean ‘matter’, it means human activity, conscious labour, social production.
Your failure to understand ‘philosophical concepts’, alan, is rooted in the ideology of ‘materialism’. It’s meant to hide things from you, to make things unclear, so that an elite can tell you, without you having to trouble yourself. It’s Lenin’s method, of the ‘special consciousness party’, which denies workers’ democracy.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “i find it difficult to incorporate philosophical concepts into practical politics”
It’s not surprising, alan, because someone else has been ‘incorporating’ them for you, and pretending that they haven’t, and that they don’t need to explain, and thus they encourage you to ‘just get on’ with ‘practice’.
Annndddd… dah, dah… there you go!
Of course, as Gorter said in your article, workers have to do their own ‘incorporating’, to allow their own self-development. And this is a social, not an individual, task. You only ‘find it difficult’ because someone has an interest in you finding it difficult.
So, your choice, alan. Ask some comrades to explain (I’m always here, if you want my help), and then ‘incorporate’ yourself the ‘concepts’ that you then think will advance the building of democratic socialism.
Bit of a clue – Marx, Pannekoek, Gorter… and thousands of Marxists since… argued that the ‘philosophical’ was not ‘materialism’.
Whatever you’ve been told about ‘materialism’, all your life, has been incomprehensible nonsense – that’s why you can’t comprehend it.
Quote from Gorter:
“However, before we proceed to a clear statement of what historical materialism is, in anticipation of encountering certain prejudices and foreseeable misunderstandings, we would like to first of all say what historical materialism is not. For besides the historical materialism that is the doctrine of social democracy, a particular doctrine established by Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, there is also philosophical materialism, and various systems of that kind. And these systems, unlike historical materialism, do not address the question of how the mind is compelled by social existence, by the mode of production, technology, and labor, to proceed by way of determined paths, but rather the question of the relation between body and mind, matter and soul, God and the world, etc. These other systems, which are not historical but merely philosophical, attempt to find an answer to the question: what is the nature of the relationship between thinking in general and matter, or, how did thinking arise? Historical materialism, on the other hand, asks: why is it that, in any particular era, thought takes on one form or another? General philosophical materialism will say, for example: matter is eternal, and mind is born from it under certain conditions; it then disappears when its conditions no longer exist; while historical materialism will say: the fact that proletarians think in a different way than the possessing classes is a consequence of such-and-such causes.
General philosophical materialism asks about the nature of thought. Historical materialism asks about the causes of changes in thought. The former tries to explain the origin of thought, the latter its evolution. The former is philosophical, the latter historical. The former assumes a context in which there is no thought, no mind; the latter assumes the existence of mind. The big difference is apparent.” [my bold]
Can’t get a better critique of ‘materialism’ than that, alan.
It echoes Marx’s quote, which I gave earlier, if you want to compare the two.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “LBird, what do you think of Herman Gorter’s ‘Historical Materialism’”
Thanks for the link, alan. I’ll have a browse when I have some time.
On the whole, from what I’ve read before, Gorter and Pannekoek were in favour of social revolution, by which they seem to have meant that the associated producers would democratically control all social production, and opposed Lenin’s ‘materialism’, which places power in the hands of an elite (just as Marx argued ‘materialism’ would do).
robbo203 wrote: “Now you are seriously misrepresenting me, L Bird. I have never said an elite would “control” any part of science whatsoever.”
robbo203 (a few posts earlier) wrote: “Just noticed this comment of yours LBird. This is misleading. It is true that I strongly believe that democracy has no place in the formulation of scientific theory as such.”
Well, robbo, if anyone is ‘misrepresenting’ or ‘misleading’ anyone, it’s not me, but you doing it to yourself.
If you you can explain how ‘scientific theory’ is not ‘any part of science whatsoever’, I’d be very obliged to you.
My political and philosophical position, just like Marx’s, is very simple in comparison to your ideological gymnastics.
All social production in a democratic communist society (a new mode of production) must be under the democratic control of the associated producers.
robbo203 wrote: “That said, I also clearly stated that there is a role for democracy in science – not in the process formulation of scientific theories but rather in deciding on the priorities of scientific research
These two things are quite different, LBird and I hope you can appreciate the difference” [my bold]
You are expressing an ideological opinion here, robbo, which I don’t share.
Your separation of ‘theories’ and priorities’ is an ideological one.
Marx sought a unity in science of ‘theory and practice’, which I agree with, and ‘theories’ influence ‘priorities’ and ‘priorities’ influence ‘theories’.
If there is to be a democratic method in science, it has to embrace all aspects of science.
You may disagree with this, but then you have to specify who (and why) an elite should control whatever part of science you wish to preserve from democracy.
Also, your notion of ‘uncontrolled’ is an ideological one, which is at odds with ‘power’ within science. The notion of ‘uncontrolled’ is used by a hidden elite, to pretend that ‘no-one’ controls social production. It’s a ruling class ideology.
If we, humanity, don’t ‘control’, an elite will ‘control’.
