twc
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird’s descriptions of materialism, idealism and Marx are caricatures that support his assertion that epistemology generates political power, an idealist assertion.For LBird, consciousness is not consciousness of an external [that-sided] world, but is only consciousness of the inner [this-sided] world of our own making by thought.To that extent LBird adopts a neo-Berkeleian position on the relation between human consciousness and an ultimately unknowable world beyond it.Marx’s ViewWe know Marx’s contrary position from two familiar sources.Theses on Feuerbach — Thesis II“The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question.Man must prove the truth—i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice.The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.”Theses on Feuerbach — Thesis VIII“All social life is essentially practical.All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.”German Ideology — Carver and Blank, p. 79“…from the moment when a division of material and mental labour takes place… consciousness is able to conceive of itself as something other than the consciousness of existing practice…” in Engels’s hand.“…coincides with the first form of ideology. Priests.” Added in Marx's hand.Scientific ‘Truth’From the perspective of Marx in the 1840s, objective truth can be nothing other than the power of man’s consciousness-of-his-practice in the world put into practice in the world.Of course, the power of practice can never be absolute. So also for truth.But social life is essentially practical:Man—rationally—ever weighs up the risks of getting things wrong under the rational necessity of getting things done.That is an unavoidable condition of all human practice. So also for truth.Practicing scientists rarely claim to objective truth:Scientists are content to stand by the power of their theoretical consciousness-of-their-practice when they put it into practice.This power ranges from the microscopic sub-atomic world to the macroscopic universal, over deep time and deep space, through the inanimate to the biological—conscious practical efficacy in the extraordinarily wonderful [that-sided] world.No other profession than science comes within a bull’s roar for the efficacy of its consciousness-of-its-practice when it puts it into practice.On the contrary, non-scientific professions—like those tasked with running capital—have a track record for the abysmal failure of the efficacy of their non-consciousness-of-their-practice when they put it into practice.Yet ignorant non-scientist pontificator LBird pleases himself with the smug assertion that scientists haven’t a clue about what they are doing.Of course, they wouldn’t be conducting scientific research if they already knew everything they were actively investigating.But LBird doesn’t mean ignorance as benign as that. He viscerally detests scientists as ignoramuses, while accusing them of malicious plans against all mankind. Putting all scientists under political control is what matters to him.Scientific EfficacyPlease note that Marx is here discussing scientific power and not political power.He is discussing the efficacy of our consciousness-of-practice when we put it into practice. As such it is the common intellectual and practical heritage of us all!We all survive in the [that-sided] world by exercising such efficacy and refining such consciousness. The only difference is that scientists exercise that efficacy and refine that consciousness systematically.Bishop BerkeleyMarx makes no claim about objective truth being determined by subjective assessment.On the contrary: the objective truth of “this-side” is determined “that-side” — Marx the materialist.Marx is totally opposed to endorsing opinion on scientific matters [see Marx’s contempt for scientific dilettantism in his 1870s letter outlining his plan to set up a Journal of Scientific Socialism].Marx would have scorned the faintest hint of scientific adjudication by people who have not practiced in the [that-sided] world, whose accessibility they have been socially brow beaten into denying.Marx never ever in his wildest dreams endorsed Bishop George Berkeley when he spoke of objective truth.
So, they should be inducted into neo-Berkeleanism, and told beforehand to vote for capitalism until they attain enlightenment, and then swot up in acarology… in order to become, in your words, “elite” impractical dilettantes in every subject, object and reject as essential training to police and stifle every non-conformist thought so that bourgeois scientists don’t take over the socialist world and conduct Mengele experiments on them. Your words.
LBird wrote:Well, alan, if you can't tell the difference between power in the hands of the producers, and power in the hands of an elite, there's nothing further I can say that will convince you.Fancy, in all the merry dance you led us, in hectoring us over your miraculous undergraduate-level neo-Berkelean misreading of Marx, you never once comprehended that every able bodied person under socialism will be a producer.There can be no elite, in the political sense, if there are no political classes. And there are no political classes if there is no political [=power] struggle to control the means (or wherewithal) of social production.Political conflict over social production is the essential hallmark of class-divided society. It takes the form of a class struggle between the political class or classes that hold the political power to own and control the machinery of social production, whether land, resources or, in the ancient mode of production, humans as chattel, and the political class or classes that lack that ownership and control.Capitalism has simplified that class struggle into a political struggle between only two classes. But that is not how the phenomena of capitalism appear on the surface to the protagonists engaged in the practical daily necessity of reproducing the social system.Producing is an eternal practical necessity for mankind’s survival. That it is not humanly meaningful under capitalism is one of our many condemnations of the system. But dissatisfaction is not a permanent feature of social producing. Joy in producing becomes meaningful in classless society, where mankind has comprehended the practical necessity to produce cooperatively (and not divisively) in order to reproduce himself/herself as truly human.Your fear over political power reflects your erstwhile Leninist power framework that you still intellectually operate in.If now you plan to slink off from the forum, licking your dented Berkelean super-ego, perhaps lend a parting consideration to those normal folks who, at the expense of magnifying your brilliance, you maliciously humiliated and abused, and whether you owe them a decent apology.
Out of the mouth of the scientifically illiterate…
LBird wrote:And who told you that you are made of ‘matter’? And why not energy? Your ideology is 19th century, Tim.Nobody can be made of energy, whether in the 19th, 20th or 21st century!Energy, like mass, is an attribute of matter. It is borne by matter, not an alternative. Think of energy as an adjective that clings to the noun ‘matter’.What LBird is grasping for is the scientific principle of mass–energy equivalence (E = mc²) which doesn’t imply the magic he imagines.Consider particle–antiparticle annihilation… Quantum mechanics permit massive particle–antiparticle annihilation to create other massive particles, so long as overall energy and momentum are conserved.Mass is not condemned to vanish, as it always does in the popular magazine articles!Modern scientists are not the mindless idiots of your opprobrium.You may be thrilled to learn that Frederick Engels correctly understood the implications of the 19th century precursor to mass–energy equivalence—which you fail to understand—namely the First Law of Thermodynamics, particularly in its related form of transformation and conservation of energy.You might also be thrilled to learn that Karl Marx was simultaneously, but independently in the British Museum, single-handedly developing his analogous transformational and conservation circuit of capital.You might be delirious to learn that the French philosophes were their great precursors: Lavoisier with his conservation of mass; Quesnay with his Tableau économique.And definitely thrilled to learn that the scientific principle, which (21st century) you wield like a boat anchor, rests upon the Lucretian John Dalton and his reclamation of materialist Democritan/Epicurean atoms.A gentle admonition to a Berkelean denier of principles within nature: “All social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.”
This has to be Seen to be Believed TK: “Do you believe that matter has an existence independent of your perception of it?”LBird: “The answer is ‘No’” LBird’s irrelevance that “nature is matter or energy” doesn’t alter his answer ‘No’.LBird’s immaterialist “we created matter as inorganic nature” doesn’t alter his answer ‘No’.LBird’s denial of inherent properties to nature confirms his answer ‘No’.LBird’s denial of nature’s incessant dynamism—from the universal to the quantum—confirms his answer ‘No’.LBird’s assertion that only we change nature—because we create it—conclusively establishes his Berkelean reality that the ultimate philosophical answer is ‘No’. Marxismus est Berkeleismus —LBird [22/09/2016]
ALB wrote:After all, while nobody, not even us, can make capitalism work in the interest of the workers, it is still possible to make things less worse — though of course that’s not the job of the partyBut the 20th century history of things made “less worse” against the interests of capital reveals their subsequent reversal by, and in the interests, of the very capital they were vainly supposed to thwart.Every substantial “less worse” gain has been wound back.Capital must grind the working class inexorably for as long as the working class supports it. In that context, amelioration of the effects of capital is a natural reaction to the grinding effects of capital, but its lasting “less worse” efficacy can only be wishful thinking.
The substantive point is can anyone—the Party included—run capitalism in any but the interests of capital?
The SPA case, as quoted above, is the only socialist position.The Party has only one Object. Its Object and Declaration of Principles leave no room for doubt.It is a mug’s game for the Party to attempt to administer capitalism in the interests of the working class.The Party case is that nobody—not even the Party—can run capitalism. Otherwise what on earth is its case against reformism?The Party case is that capital runs capitalism.Do you really think that anyone—including the Party—can steer capitalism in working class interests?Do you really believe it possible?
What a feeble cop out from the rampant anti-socialist who urges people to vote for the Truth of Capitalism in his other life, yet feigns esoteric mental elitism to dodge exoteric substantiation of his anti-Party sniping in this one.Chomsky’s fantasy is that mankind is born innate with every language that was, is and ever will be.LBird’s fantasy exceeds Chomsky’s. His fantasy conjures into thought a Utopia ruled by post-doctoral encyclopaedic dilettantism.LBird’s Utopians are indistinguishable from games-show contestants whose special subject is the truth of everything that was, is and ever will be.LBird’s Utopians’ perpetual task is to dictate to the social practitioners actually practicing the actual truth of the practitioners’ actual practice.From such Utopian omniscience, nobody buys your feigned intellectual cop out.Demonstrate the courage of your convictions:Lay yourself open to exoteric criticism, or else skulk off ignominiously like a rebuffed cur with tail between legs.
Well join the Jehovah’s Witnesses if their campaigning—a purely capitalist electoral issue—is so superior. Follow the leader….
‘Write-In’ VotingAustralian voters are legally permitted to ‘write-in’ a political message on their ballot paper as long as it doesn’t identify the voter nor obscure the voting intention.This lets you squib ALB’s dilemma…You could shamefacedly cast a reformist “NO” on a Referendum ballot paper while simultaneously ‘writing-in’ a revolutionary message W O R L D S O C I A L I S M without spoiling your vote.Against this dualism, I hold that no better electoral case has ever been—or could ever be—written, and ‘written-in’, than the Socialist Party of Australia’s case ALB quotes:
The SPA wrote:Therefore, the Socialist Party of Australia maintains that it is not in the interest of the working class to vote either “YES” or “NO”. One issue, and one issue alone, is worthy of working class support: Socialism. You can use this referendum to reject the two evils offered to you, and at least protest against this rotten system by writing “SOCIALISM” across the ballot paper. Then, when you understand the choice before you, come and join us in more positive action!"Wasting the Vote?In answer to those who scoff that writing W O R L D S O C I A L I S M across a ballot paper is wasting or spoiling a vote…In 1981 the Australian state of Tasmania held a state Referendum over whether to build a hydro-electric dam above or below the junction of two wild rivers, but without an anti-dam choice.As the proposed dam was to be built in UNESCO World Heritage wilderness, the disenfranchised “No Dam” movement openly urged people to use their vote by writing—as if in emulation of century-old Socialist Party practice— N O D A M S across their Referendum ballot papers.Here are the Referendum results https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Dam_controversy8% for a dam above the junction47% for a dam below the junction45% informal.Significantly, over 33%, or one-third of Tasmanians, voting under a compulsory franchise, wrote N O D A M S across their Referendum ballot papers to register their intention. The Referendum was ultimately lost.Writing W O R L D S O C I A L I S M across your ballot paper is a vote for Socialism. It is not, in the socialist sense, spoiling your ballot paper nor wasting your rare opportunity to vote.Abstention is how you waste your precious vote for socialism!
Vote No or Vote “World Socialism”In Australia, voting at federal and state elections is compulsory. Abstention is not an option.The [World] Socialist Party of Australia’s default electoral position was to register a vote for world socialism, either byvoting for a standing Party candidateor writing W O R L D S O C I A L I S M across the ballot paper.ALB asks whether a vote of “No” is an appropriate response to a referendum like the 1951 Australian federal Referendum to “Ban the Communist Party”, a ban that readily extends itself to embrace the Socialist Party?My answer is that, despite the serious emergency situation of such a Referendum vote, with dire collateral consequences for the Party, an opposing vote of “No” is not the appropriate response, and I would personally vote the default: W O R L D S O C I A L I S M But I would not urge others to vote the same way on such a crucial issue that puts the short-term survival of the Socialist Party on the agenda.I point out that the reformist—though, at the time considered, revolutionary—German Social Democrats flourished under Bismark’s anti-socialist laws. That, of course, is no convincing argument against voting “No”. But it does suggest that suppression of social movements and censorship of social thought rebounds in the long term against the short-term social suppressor and thought censor.I wonder if any articles from Australia appeared in the Socialist Standard at the time that may suggest what stance the Australian Party took.
Australian ReferendaAn Australian referendum is a vote to change the Australian Constitution. For it to succeed, and thereby change the Australian Constitution, the referendum vote—which is compulsory under the Constitution—must jump two distinct hurdles:a majority of votes across the nationa majority in a majority of the states (excluding the territories: ACT & NT).The second hurdle is a historical safeguard, written into the Australian Constitution, to assure electoral protection to the constituent states that wrote it, independent of the size of their individual population. How the populous states agreed to this is anyone’s guess.Consequently, the second hurdle often turns into a barrier to Constitutional change, for if a group of less populated states (e.g., Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia) opposes a federal referendum proposal—perhaps on party lines—that proposal will fail no matter how overwhelming the national majority. As a consequence, only 8 out of 44 Australian referendum proposals have been carried since Federation in 1901.Equal representation by unequally populated states, in both referenda and in the senate [the federal upper house], once famously provoked frustrated Prime Minister Paul Keating to call the senators “unrepresentative swill”.Australian PlebiscitesOn the other hand, when the Australian federal government drafts a plebiscite it is free to set its own electoral criteria, and to ignore state-by-state breakdowns.Even so, federal government-backed plebiscites are not necessarily pushovers for the government that proposes them.As ALB mentioned, in 1916 the Australian Labor government lost two plebiscites over military conscription during WWI, the second was lost even after Prime Minister Hughes extended the franchise to troops at the front. [Unlike other WWI armed forces, Australian soldiers were non-conscripted volunteers—a testimony both to innocence bred of isolation and the emotional hold over them of the “ideal” of heeding the mother country’s call “in the defence of her Great Empire”. That was a century ago.]I will discuss the issue abstention in a subsequent post.
