LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote:If i was sitting in the pub with you lot, i would move to another table !!
Therein lies our problem!If you can't be induced to engage in such an important issue, it won't be raised and discussed amongst us, and the current default position will remain: 'keep politics out of physics'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I've played on the same pitch as elite sportspersons (well, an Ireland 7's international), so I quite firmly believe they exist…We're on the site of a Socialist party, talking about Communist politics, and about the power of various socio-economic and political elites, who have authority over the proletariat, and you bring up sport?I really don't know what else to say.Well, YMS, you look to an Ireland 7 international for your answers about the philosophy of science and the problem of scientific authority within society. Good luck.
twc wrote:Can you afford to remain democratic?Democracy is the only option for all Communists, not just me.I don't believe in 'elites', either in society or in science.But if you (and YMS, DJP?) do believe in 'elites' in any sphere, why not say so, and make it plain?I don't understand how any Communist can hold to 'democratic' methods in politics, but not in science. This contradiction, to me, is a key philosophical problem.But to answer it, we have to actually recognise it as a 'problem'. I suppose that the obvious answer for those holding this (to me, contradictory) idea is to deny that there is any problem, and that 'democracy in politics' can exist alongside 'elitism in science'.
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 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?
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!
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.
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…
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?
Young Master Smeet wrote:I'm not sure this bourgeois/proletarian science thing holds. There are thousands of proletarian scientists, in unviersities up and down the land, on the treadmill of publish or perish, working without owning their ideas (in collaboration in massive projects of associated labour), most mainstream science and its outputs are prolatearian efforts. The day of the lone gentleman of leisure collating knowledge from correspondence is long over.What this has to do with anything I've written, I'm not sure, YMS.
Vin Maratty wrote:It seems to me, LBird, that the only 'meat' on your argument consists of insults, which is not impressing anyone.twc calls me 'boy', I call him 'old'. If the latter is an insult, so is the former. Have a word with twc, if you're so concerned about 'insults'.As for arguments, I see that you haven't ventured to engage in the discussion. I'm not impressed with you, either.As to 'meat', for god's sake, how much more can I do? I've tried explaining over several threads the need for 'theory and practice', and all I get is 'Why keep talking just about theory, LBird?'.I've tried discussing Marx, Engels, Pannekoek, Untermann, Dietzgen, Lenin, Korsch, and modern philosophers of science like Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Bhaskar, Archer, Schaff, Marks…How much more 'meat' is there? No, the real problem is the lack of willingness by the partisans of 'Engelsian science' to actually do much wider, and critical, reading.
twc wrote:Why do you insist on democratic voting on scientific theory, on all things scientific — as you once said, on every last aspect of every scientist's work and thought?Because I'm a Communist, unlike you!
twc wrote:You must do so because of the non-deterministic idealist bent to your "philosophy", which consequently forces you to rely on determination of all truth by thought alone, as you fail to comprehend that abstraction reveals external determinism, which is largely independent of humans, or it could never work for us.[my bold]You really should try reading, old bean, rather than making up 'fairy stories' about the philosophy of others.
twc wrote:If Marx's science is mere ideology for you, then socialism remains entirely voluntaristic…[my bold]This is becoming laughable, old chap! Embarrassing, even to children like me!You continue to avoid the issue of 'theory and practice'.Perhaps I should warn you… listening to rocks is a sign of senility…[ahhh… shame… the old buffer can't hear or think any more…]Yes, yes, I can hear the fossil… 'Gondwana supercontinent' it clearly says… most determinedly…Oh, fossil, can you tell twc that I am an idealist, and only have room for 'theory'…What, he's not even listening to you, now? Perhaps your words are all just in my mind, fossil?
twc wrote:Scott had stumbled on the indicator fossil for the ancient supercontinent of Gondwana. If you find this fossil, you know that you are standing on ancient Gondwanan rocks.There are two possible methods being described, here. Either:a) 'material conditions' give humans ideas of what they are; or,b) humans create ideas and test those ideas against the 'material conditions' that humans actively select.The first is the method of positivist science, which claims to produce the 'Eternal Truth'.The second is the method of Marx, of 'theory and practice', which claims to socially-produce 'knowledge' which remains a social, cultural and historical product. Because it's a human product, it's possible that this 'truth' is wrong.If one believes that the fossil whispered 'I'm from Gondwana supercontinent' to Scott or Stopes, and thus that this is 'The Truth' for evermore, then one can be supremely confident in the method of 'science', and thus have complete, nay religious, faith in scientists and the authoritative knowledge that they produce. They remain an authority which cannot be challenged by democracy. The scientists claim to have an infallible method.Me? I'm with Marx. Humans, given thousands of years of previous cultural development, came up with the idea of the 'Gondwana supercontinent', and the evidence which humans have selected in practice seems to confirm this theory. But… it's not 'The Truth', but a human cultural and historical artifact which we now call 'true knowledge', and we're aware that, in the future, other theories and selection practices based upon those new theories might disprove the thesis of the 'Gondwana supercontinent'. And since this 'truth' is a human creation, it remains within the realms of human democratic controls. We know humans, including scientists, are all-too fallible.a) is a bourgeois method; andb) is a proletarian method.
robbo203 wrote:My experience of debating with people on the Left has led me to conclude that a good many of them do indeed take up a perspective that I would call "mechanical materialism" – the argument that ideas are no more than the product or "reflection"of "material reality".I couldn't agree more, robbo. This is my experience, too, on several socialist/communist/anarchist sites.But one consequence of taking this stance, of being opposed to 'mechanical materialism', is that we have to apply our 'activist human' notion to all science, including physics.There are still comrades arguing that the (always unspecified) 'scientific method' produces 'The Truth' about the external world of nature.
robbo203 wrote:It places human agency and choice at the centre of a process in which certain ideas spread and gain ground and others die out. Point being that ideas are "selected for" – not simply "produced". This denotes an active creative role of human beings in history [and physics] as opposed to seeing individuals [or scientific knowledge] as the merely the product of circumstances. It is in line with Marx's insight that men make their own history albeit out of materials not of their own choosing.[my bold inserts]This putting of 'active, creative humans' is a philosophical choice entirely at one with the SPGB's view of 'class consciousness', I think.
robbo203 wrote:I would have thought,as an SPGBer, .you would have been rather sympathetic to this line of thought. I have my criticism of the SPGB but I have never denied that the "abstact propagandism", which is its trademark, has an important role to play in the socialist revolution. Something that sections of the so called revolutionary Left sneeringly dismiss in vanguardist fashion. Point is that that ridiculous posture of theirs is precisely the logical outcome of their own crass mechanically materialist view of the world.Yes, the SPGB's position on education and propaganda as playing a vital role (alongside class conscious action) in producing a class conscious, Communist, proletariat, only makes sense if this view is extended to physics and our understanding of nature.All scientific research has ideology intertwined in it. The sooner humans accept this, the sooner we'll have more 'socially objective' knowledge. This view puts the proletariat potentially at the forefront of human thinking. What's more, some advanced bourgeois philosophers have been moving towards this view for decades. IMO, they're simply catching up with Marx's insights in the 1840s. We have no need to stick with 'elitist' views of science, as being the provence of only the select few, an educated elite, because if humans can democratically control production, they must be able to democratically control science, which is an essential part of production. Communist society will abhor elites, in any social role, including investigating nature.
