[LBird]

I've just come across this text, and I'm still working my way through it.The Tradition of Scientific Marxism, by John Holloway.http://marxmyths.org/john-holloway/article.htmBut here is an excerpt which is to my political and scientific taste:

Holloway wrote:

The notion of Marxism as scientific socialism has two aspects. In Engels’ account there is a double objectivity. Marxism is objective, certain, ‘scientific’ knowledge of an objective, inevitable process. Marxism is understood as scientific in the sense that it has understood correctly the laws of motion of a historical process taking place independently of men’s will. All that is left for Marxists to do is to fill in the details, to apply the scientific understanding of history.The attraction of the conception of Marxism as a scientifically objective theory of revolution for those who were dedicating their lives to struggle against capitalism is obvious. It provided not just a coherent conception of historical movement, but also enormous moral support: whatever reverses might be suffered, history was on our side. The enormous force of the Engelsian conception and the importance of its role in the struggles of that time should not be overlooked. At the same time, however, both aspects of the concept of scientific socialism (objective knowledge, objective process) pose enormous problems for the development of Marxism as a theory of struggle.If Marxism is understood as the correct, objective, scientific knowledge of history, then this begs the question, ‘who says so?’ Who holds the correct knowledge and how did they gain that knowledge? Who is the subject of the knowledge? The notion of Marxism as ‘science’ implies a distinction between those who know and those who do not know, a distinction between those who have true consciousness and those who have false consciousness.This distinction immediately poses both epistemological and organisational problems. Political debate becomes focussed on the question of ‘correctness’ and the ‘correct line’. But how do we know (and how do they know) that the knowledge of ‘those who know’ is correct? How can the knowers (party, intellectuals or whatever) be said to have transcended the conditions of their social time and place in such a way as to have gained a privileged knowledge of historical movement? Perhaps even more important politically: if a distinction is to be made between those who know and those who do not, and if understanding or knowledge is seen as important in guiding the political struggle, then what is to be the organisational relation between the knowers and the others (the masses)? Are those in the know to lead and educate the masses (as in the concept of the vanguard party) or is a communist revolution necessarily the work of the masses themselves (as ‘left communists’ such as Pannekoek maintained)? .

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

'proletarian democracy'

Shouldn't this be "socialist" or "communist" democracy as by then the "proletariat" will have disappeared or, more precisely, will have abolished itself and all other classes by having made the means of production the common heritage of all?

As a contrast to 'bourgeois democracy' in an explanation tailored for admice's question, I think it'll do.Furthermore, what would we call our political method this side of the 'glorious day'?'Proto-communist democracy'?Nah, 'proletarian democracy', as a contrast to the current lie of 'parliamentary democracy', is easily understood by workers first coming to our Communist politics. It clearly separates us, too, from the Soviet Union, Maoist China and Castro's Cuba.'Democratic Kampuchea' might cause some confused comment, though!Ahhhh…. the essential fragrance of Pol Pot Pourri…

[LBird]

Jonathan Chambers wrote:

Brian wrote:

…in a socialist society we'll be more conscious of our potential to engage in productive activity which is beneficial to the individual and the community? 

 Of course.  But the fact remains that there are limits to that potential.

The real issue is:'Who or what determines what 'potential' consists of and how it is realised, and who or what determines its 'limits'?'For example, the answer could be 'genes' or could be 'society'. And if 'society', it could be a 'minority social authority' or a 'majority social authority'.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

I personally would welcome any contribution you care to make regarding how we go about peeling the onion even if it occasionally brings tears to my eyes.

[my extended bold]It might bring tears to your eyes, Brian, to realise that you've answered your own philosophical question!Simply put, 'We'. Active humanity.The 'onion' doesn't disrobe itself to the passive viewer, as positivist science, Engels, Dialectical Materialism, and 'common sense', popular science, all seem to believe.And once we say 'We', we say 'Society'. And drag in politics, ideology, class, etc.There is no neutral scientific method that allows the onion to present itself unbidden.Anyone who says that 'there is' is trying to pull the wool over our collective eyes. That includes Leninist parties and bourgeois scientists.

[LBird]

admice wrote:

If it's a true democracy, you can't guarantee it wil be or remain socialist. ^^

If we define 'bourgeois democracy' to be 'in politics, one person one vote; in economics, one dollar, one vote'and we define 'proletarian democracy' to be 'in both politics and economics, one person one vote'and, furthermore, regard your 'true democracy' as the latter, then I think we can 'guarantee it will remain socialist'.Once 'true democracy' has been achieved, why would a majority of people then choose to return to minority power? That is, to again allow the rich to determine how our wealth, which is produced in common by us all, should be spent on their private interests, rather than on our public interests?I think you'd be forced to argue, admice, that this could only happen if most people were stupid.This is precisely what conservatives do argue. Ask Boris Johnson.

[LBird]

As far as I can tell, slothjabber is literally correct in their contributions to this thread. That is, they have a good case for their argument, which probably needed making, that that SPGB were being a bit sloppy in their own use of language/terms.But I can't help feeling that slothjabber has alienated comrades from, rather than attracted them to, their side.Politics isn't just about 'winning a case', but more like 'garnering support'. It doesn't pay politically to be 'right', but end up isolated. It's possible to 'win support' by comradely means.There's a lesson here somewhere, for all of us Communists. And I include myself in that judgement.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty, post #424, wrote:

Do the 'methods' used today to search for a cure for cancer need replacing with some other 'methods'?

Could you describe the scientific 'method' used today to search for a cure for cancer, please, Vin?

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

'Never mind the idea of 'free-access', will I still be able to buy a packet of fags?'.

 This does not remotely resemble my questions to you; questions you have still not attempted to answer.  

Do you want to discuss the philosophy of science, Vin?If not, that's OK by me.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Do the 'methods' used  today to search  for  a cure for cancer need replacing with some other 'methods'?Is the failure to find a cure for cancer down to bourgeois methodology?

This is a discussion of philosophical ideas, Vin.These ideas have implications in politics.Reducing this to a question of 'cancer cure' is to reduce it to day-to-day concerns.It's a bit like trying to discuss Capital, revolution and Communism, while the other person insists on reducing the issues to day-to-day, real-life, concerns, like 'Never mind the idea of 'free-access', will I still be able to buy a packet of fags?'.If you think that discussing a vital issue like 'finding a cancer cure' answers all our difficulties with 'science', I'm afraid that you're mistaken.Sorry, comrade.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

What do you think they were trying to express in the crossed-out passage?

I think that they were trying to express what I wrote earlier:

LBird, post 418, wrote:

The production of knowledge of both natural and social science is done by humans.Natural and social science both employ the same method.If social science can be bourgeois, so can natural science.If natural science can be socially-neutral, so can social science.If anyone disagrees with these theses, please detail the different theories of cognition used by natural and social sciences.I'm with Pannekoek, who argues that scientific knowledge is created by humans (not by nature or a neutral method) and Marx, who argues that humans must unite natural and social science into a singular method.The belief in the separation of natural and social science is a bourgeois ideological belief.

The notion that the 'science' of nature has a socially-neutral method, which differs from that of the science of society, has been destroyed by bourgeois philosophers themselves. Even religious thinkers, as you yourself have shown, know this.It's my opinion that 'Engelsian' positivist science is a break with Marx's earlier formulations; a break which was caused by the power of positivist science in the 19th century to influence social ideas, especially Engels' views of science; and a break which leads to the separation of humans from nature and thus politically the separation of party from class.I might be wrong, but in none of the discussions so far, on a number of threads, has there been any proper counter-argument, other than mere repetition of 19th century, outdated, views of 'science'. It's the 'science' we're taught in schools, along with history, politics, economics, sociology, etc., etc.I'm always surprised that Communists who have already come to realise the lies about 'The Market' find it so difficult to overcome similar lies about 'Science'. If we can't trust 'economists', why should we trust 'scientists'? Specialist authority is the antithesis of democratic control: if it's allowed in science, it'll follow in politics.Whoever says 'Scientific Socialism' says 'Leninism', in my opinion.

[LBird]

Marx, The German Ideology, (CW 5, p. 28) wrote:

We know only a single science, the science of history. One can look at history from two sides and divide it into the history of nature and the history of men. The two sides are, however, inseparable; the history of nature and the history of men are dependent on each other so long as men exist.

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

[LBird]

Malayahttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jan/25/malaysia-militaryKenyahttp://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/18/britain-destroyed-records-colonial-crimesPalestinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Night_Squads

[LBird]

Ozymandias wrote:

…there is still 1% of me that holds a wee peep of hope.

The '1% seed' will blossom, in the right soil, watered by circumstance, comrade!

Ozymandias wrote:

Don't be angry with me please. Rather pity me.

I'm not angry, you've already got the '1% seed', which is more than most, so far.I'd prefer to hope with you, than to pity.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Could you please clarify what exactly you mean by "potential"?

The potential to become Communists.

Brian wrote:

The youth always have had potential to criticise capitalism…

No, until this generation, 'youth' has always been better off than its parents.

Brian wrote:

Indeed, these malcontents passively accept the reproduction of capital and their own labour power whatever the circumstances they happen to be in.

That's why it's only 'potential'.The question is, 'will passive acceptance continue, whatever the circumstances?'.If we Communists continue to offer an alternative, perhaps 'youth' will 'actively choose' to prevent the 'reproduction of capital'.Perhaps they'll flock to 'the colours' and the queen, when the Chinese War begins. Perhaps Marx was wrong. Perhaps the tories are right, and most people (young and old) are thick.On balance, I think I'll stick with 'youth potential'. Beats relying on academics.

[LBird]

Ozymandias wrote:

…right about the youth, they are thick as shit like the vast majority of the proles…

Quite frankly, I don't think that 'the youth' are any 'thicker' than many bourgeois professors and other academics. Have you ever talked to 'academics' (or PhD students) about anything removed even fractionally from their extremely narrow 'speciality'? In fact, I'd go further: even within their speciality, they often don't have a clue beyond what they've been taught to think.Nah, give me 'the youth' anytime. At least they've got potential, given the ever harsher circumstances within which they are being forced to survive.Oh yeah, and while we're here, Oz… I'm a fuckin' 'prole'…

[Author]

Posts