twc
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird, you’ve never once acknowledged Marx’s reference to objective truth, nor the countless times Pannekoek affirms his materialism, as I’ve just been reminded of upon rereading his “Lenin as Philosopher”.Surely such waywardness of erstwhile heroes deserves a snarl or bite from you.
It is historical social proof, the only one we know.No-one can historically know its ultimate status. Human practice, despite your carping, has no choice but to take it on trust as 100%. You and I act practically that way all the time, or else we would be practically paralytic before the possibility of uncertainty.Engels knows very well that he risks your variety of carping, but he is here prepared to challenge the dualists, like yourself, who stress the exact opposite of 0·000% proof, i.e. that we can never know, your very own defeatist slant, which he, as active agent of socialism, will have none of.If you were to apply your logic to the impossibility, and therefore the meaninglessness of Marxian proof by practice, I can just imagine you attempting to tie your own shoelace, assuming they exist with < 100% proof; < 100% certain they can be tied; < 100% confident they will hold your < 100% existing shoe in your < 100% actual foot, before you even < 100% walk out your < 100% door, never 100% certain of anything!Well, not everything. According to your crude economic determinism, you hold 100% irrefutable certainty that
wrote:any owner of socially productive property is a thief, a liar, and doesn’t have a clue about what they are really doing, and know nothing about the history of capitalism. That includes the queen, all religious leaders, The War Criminal Tony Blair, and The British, amongst others.Come on. Forget about psyching yourself up 24/7 [= 100%] to be an 100% ideological freak. Join the real world where people manage the possible with normal certainty. That’s ultimately what science is for. Science’s intellectual pleasure is a welcome byproduct.
By the way, it is your illusion that Engels is a naive realist. That is your Leninist-inspired prejudice.It is you who hold a direct correspondence “theory” of class/group/authority 100% determines “ideology”.
DJP wrote:What makes a theory beautiful?What is it that makes something seem true?Since we all survive because we can comprehend objective truth, however imperfectly, and because we can detect its opposite objective falsity, however imperfectly, the answer must be thoroughly prosaic.Setting aside our evolutionary heritage, the deepest, and unassailable, assessment was made by two well-known folks: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.Human action had solved the difficulty long before human ingenuity invented it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. From the moment we turn to our own use these objects, according to the qualities we perceive in them, we put to an infallible test the correctness or otherwise of our sense-perception.If these perceptions have been wrong, then our estimate of the use to which an object can be turned must also be wrong, and our attempt must fail. But, if we succeed in accomplishing our aim, if we find that the object does agree with our idea of it, and does answer the purpose we intended it for, then that is proof positive that our perceptions of it and of its qualities, so far, agree with reality outside ourselves [≡ objective truth]. …In both materialist assessments, human practice is the ultimate arbiter. Theory is our necessary intermediary for comprehending
(1) “objective truth” ≡ (2) “reality outside of ourselves”.
All else is sophisticated blather.¹Beauty, in the context of theory, is a driving force, but ultimately practical, because theoretical beauty is a human construction designed to reduce the complexity of the form theory takes.Formal beauty is awe at our own creation when it turns out, by abstract excision of formal complexity, to reveal a hitherto undreamed of objective truth [≡ reality outside of ourselves]. It is the power of formal abstraction applied to formal abstraction [= theory] itself.There is nothing of deeper substance to add.If there is, prove it to me! ¹ Marx and Engels, like Hegel before them, treat “objective truth” and “reality outside ourselves” as historical social categories of thought.Stuart,I just reread your pleasant article. You know my quibbles over Lao Tzu, but I respect that you want his poem to be interpreted in its ancient context. I always consider that commentators overplay the seriousness of Marx’s critical-critic fisher scenario, forgetting that it’s also an intellectual joke at the expense of his young hegelian opponents.But, as a defence of the moral integrity of Marx and Engels, your article is first rate. Those two men are the most moral that society has ever produced. I won’t argue this here, but you have gone a long way towards proving it. Their activity and thought is our exemplary standard.
Stuart,I unreservedly withdraw my Leftist charge. Please accept my apologies. I understand your conscientious action.You must be aware that I wasn’t addressing your article, but your posts. Your article seemed fine to me on a quick read, which doubtless didn’t do it justice, and I’ll immediately reread it to do justice to your effort.
So now we are back to you guys dissing science and Marx, by innuendo, but carefully refusing to be specific. That is moral cowardice.You guys have a moral duty to explain clearly what scientific results you doubt and why.You guys have a moral duty to explain clearly where you disagree with Marx, and how serious your disagreement is for socialism.If you don’t you are only helping anti-socialism by spreading rumours about, and so subtly undermining, science, Marx and socialism.
Stuart, you have just expressed Wheenian tripe.Let’s first stick to rationality—something that can be understood.You claim your precept of “common humanity” is not meant to paper over differences. Then how useful is it? It has never once proved useful in stopping violence through racial hatred, national hatred, etc. [The parallel situation is anthropogenic global warming. Everyone knows it’s occurring, but so far universal acknowledgement has proved universally powerless, and is only acceptable where capital can make a big buck out of trading in it. That, by the way, is a materialist explanation, in case you’ve never seen one.]Surely you must recognize that your Wheenian sentimental socialism is for “the poor in spirit" of social democracy. Socialists are fundamentally pacifists, but not moral cowards.Don’t you dare insinuate without justifiable grounds that I urge a resort to arms. I have no aggressiveness at all. I have opposed that at all times, and that’s why you got upset at my critique of your “romantic” voluntarism.I have only come to this forum to defend the party’s case against those who doubt it, or would undermine it from outside. How do you recommend I should behave? Encourage or oppose them.So often, I’ve seen good folks suffer at the hands of the unscrupulous. I comprehend that necessary defensive morality for socialism. If I tread on toes, it’s only because prejudice is treading on the party’s toes. I see capitalist prejudice informing much of what you hold, and the socialist case I turn against you consequently hurts. It is unfortunate that you set yourself up to be a causality, but I’m not letting the party be your wishy–washy casualty.I therefore must imagine that, historically, you are a refugee from the Left, and still view many things through remnant Leftist lenses.If Marx is nonsense to you, and merely an able satirist, you are simply in the wrong party. The party case was devised largely by Marx as a consequence of his scientific materialist conception of history.If you doubt Marx’s science, you doubt the effacy of our Obj and DOP. Why on earth did you rejoin when you could have got far more entertainment from a literary society?For me, Marx and Marxian science need reclamation. My immediate task is to demolish the communist drivel Peter Stillman wrote, and then to turn to Meiskens-whatever her name is.I hope to have made myself clear.
LBird wrote:I start from the (1) notion that (2) any owner of (3) socially productive property (4) is a thief, (5) a liar, and (6) doesn’t have a clue about what they are really doing, and (7) know nothing about the history of capitalism. That includes (
the queen, (9) all religious leaders, The War Criminal Tony Blair, and The British, amongst others.As long as you read ‘queen’ as referring to (10) all ‘authorities’ in our society (including (11) scientists and (12) politicians), you will get my gist.He needs to meet and discuss ‘the world’ with (13) Communists, who’ll initially try to explain the complexities of Marx et al (14) in simpler language. (15) He'll then have an excellent 'general education'!The victim bit is (16) not an individual choice, but (17) a socially-given structural position. I very much doubt that The Economist mentions (18) this scientific fact, either.(1) How did LBird arrive at his notion (1), except by abstraction from appearance?(2) “Socially productive” under capitalism means “productive” of value and, crucially, “productive” of surplus value.Our own labour power is directly productive of value, while our own meagre bank accounts and retirement contributions are indirectly productive of surplus value. So, ipso facto, we are all thieves, liars, clueless about what we do, and ignorant of the history of capitalism.(3) Not necessarily.LBird ignorantly abstracts away collective possession of socially productive use-values held in common [i.e. socialism]; or hunter–gatherers, who possess portable means of socially productive use-values held individually; or pre-capitalist group possession of socially productive use-values that are held in common by extended-families, which must first be disposed of their life-sustaining socially productive use-values by capitalist primitive accumulation.(4)–(7) Stuart, it may surprise you to discover that LBird literally believes in possession of the means of production automatically turning the possessor into a (4) thief, (5) liar, (6) clueless, and (7) ignoramus.Most of us took him figuratively at first, and so tolerated his claims. But make no mistake, LBird has reiterated for almost a year now that we should understand his claim literally—it is simply beyond the capacity of the possessor of means of production to be other than (4), (5), (6) and (7).This is LBird’s crude, irrefutable, economic determinism in operation. Crude, because LBird claims the effect is directly dependent upon possession. Irrefutable because LBird makes it the foundational assumption of his carefully devised ideology.LBird justifies its irrefutability on the grounds of a false attribution to Einstein that he embarrassingly lifted, without bothering to check either provenance or context, from the website of a nutty UFO “scientist”, whom he ignorantly acknowledged as an “authority”, such is LBird’s defective practice.LBird justifies his own prejudiced behaviour on the grounds that all science is ideology.Even more embarrassing is LBird’s direct application of his irrefutable notion (1) without any conditional social mediation. Consequently, his crude economic-determinism is no more than deliberate, personally adopted, political bigotry, that is analogous to more-familiar varieties of bigotry, such as racist bigotry, nationalist bigotry or religious bigotry.He feeds his voluntarist political ardor on his irrefutable political bigotry. Just revisit his incoherent attack on David Harvey. Like all political zealots, LBird fears to qualify his dogma lest qualification succeeds in undermining it, and so weaken his resolve. He has no sustaining science at all, only a deliberately assumed impervious ideology.His is the worst vulgarization of socialism I’ve ever encountered. It betrays its Leftist heritage.(
–(9) The irrefutable is here refuted [apologies to Goethe].The queen, like many people, undoubtedly has an excellent knowledge of the history of capitalism [as well as of feudalism], and she is probably better informed than most. After all she’s shared secret cabinet documents every week for 60 years. I’d imagine she knows a thing or two about capitalism, and its inner workings.Most intelligent capitalists know pretty well what they are doing, “really” or otherwise, and how best to keep on doing successfully what they are doing. Some, of the socially curious variety, have read and understood Marx, and acknowledge his insights, unlike some respondents here who condemn him and capitalism as being ultimately inscrutable.Since, for the skeptical dualist LBird, everything is personal ideology, what “really” is going on is relative to one’s adopted ideology. No-one expects a successful capitalist to inquire of LBird’s personal opinion based on his irrefutable personal assumption within his deliberately constructed ideology to find our what is “really” going on.LBird acknowledges no more than the capitalist “knows” what he is “really” doing in terms of his own personal ideology, while LBird “knows” what the capitalist is “really” doing according to his own personal ideology. The two of them glide past each other like ships in the night.In other words, LBird’s crude economic-determinist “theory” of ideology creates the perfect dualist stalemate. That’s why LBird must rely on voluntarism.(10)–(12) Stuart, in case you didn’t know, we now get to LBird’s real villains, the (10) “authorities”. Out come the scars of his former Leninist “authoritarian” indoctrination, and the humiliation of his former employment.Stuart, if you have not been closely following LBird’s progress, the chief villains of all are (11) scientists. They simply can’t be trusted.LBird’s detested scientists possess the intellectual means of production—this claim is essential to his idealist socialism—are so they are also (4) thieves, (5) liars, (6) clueless, and (7) ignoramuses, along with the (6) queen, etc. They must be kept under control at all times, because they serve no-one’s interest but their own.If we don’t keep a constant eye on them, LBird’s scientists will take over socialism. I kid you not. Scientific power is one of LBird’s two “bulwarks of capitalism”, the other being the market.(13)–(15) Here LBird extols the educator authoritatively indoctrinating the uneducated [Marx’s Thesis III]. His description of becoming a socialist is so vague and indefinite, it could apply to joining any organisation. As such, it stands at odds with applying for membership of the SPGB, whose Object LBird has confessed he lacks confidence in.(16)–(18) Please explain, from an “all is ideology” standpoint, why (16) being a victim of capitalism is not an individual choice, i.e. is not ideologically subjective.Please explain, from an “all is ideology” standpoint, why (17) a socially-given structural position can be (18) a scientific fact and not ideologically subjective.Please explain what is meant by scientific fact since, from an “all is ideology” standpoint, all “facts” are only “factual” on the basis of an “ideological” theory, and LBird is decidedly hostile to the “ideological” basis of any ideological theory devised by those detested, untrustworthy (4), (5), (6), (7) scientific “authoritarians”.Stuart, most mankind recognize our common humanity. It is not lack of comprehension that we all comprise a single species that is the problem. Our commonality is more and more universally acknowledged.The socialist case, however, is that racism, under capitalism, occurs for social reasons that appear to its protagonists to override consideration of our common humanity, even when we all recognize it. Just like nationalism, which is just as virulent, even when it acknowledges the common humanity of nationalities. Or religion, even when the Western faiths acknowledge common legendary ancestry and gods. Or poverty, or class, etc.Our common humanity has never once proved a genuine obstacle to hostile social division arising from what Marx called “economic” causes. It is these we must first explain.
Sorry, stuart, but science has proved no such thingEssence, for Marx, is no more than abstraction from appearance. Both are hegelian terms.Science has not disproved that we abstract, and automatically must abstract, from appearance. Science has not disproved that the residue of our abstraction process is a suite of abstract explanatory principles. That’s what Marx is driving at, as far as our comprehension is concerned, and science affirms him, and does not disprove him.You and I automatically, as well as consciously, critique the immediate appearance presented to our consciousness all of the time. I therefore see no reason to shun Marx’s explanatory hegelian terminology. You give me a genuine, rather than a fashionable, reason for doing so.I heartily recommend that you read all of Volume 3 Chapter 48, “The Trinity Formula” for a true masterpiece of the scientific critique of appearance. It is one of the most illuminating chapters Marx ever wrote.For Marx, appearance is what our consciousness is presented with. But our consciousness must critique the appearance presented to it in order to comprehend what lies beyond it in the external world we must comprehend in order to act successfully in.Now you want another appearance to lie behind our immediate appearance, and another appearance to lie behind that, ad infinitum.Well, if appearance is what is presented to consciousness, and so is what needs explanation, then we have the lovely deferred explanatory chain: Standing behind what needs immediate explanation is what also needs explanation, and standing behind what also needs explanation is what also needs explanation, ad infinitum.If comprehension rests on appearance all the way down to no non-appearing bedrock, how on earth do you propose we stop the explanatory chain and work our way back up it to explain the original immediate appearance, whose fleeting moment has long since been displaced by new ever-changing immediate experiences.The answer, of course, is your claim, that it’s appearance all the way down, is absolutely false. This is an empiricism that has gone berserk. You are an unconscious dualist and an empiricist. Wow!We absolutely need abstraction, and so we absolutely need essence, to decode and comprehend our immediate appearance.If you can’t comprehend that, I genuinely have little hope for you.
Not in one sentence, stuart, but maybe in two paragraphs.
Marx, Capital Vol. 3, Ch. 48, wrote:Vulgar economy actually does no more than interpret, systematise and defend in doctrinaire fashion the conceptions of the agents of bourgeois production who are entrapped in bourgeois production relations. It should not astonish us, then, that vulgar economy feels particularly at home in the estranged outward appearances of economic relations in which these prima facie absurd and perfect contradictions appear, and that these relations seem the more self-evident the more their internal relationships are concealed from it, although they are understandable to the popular mind. But all science would be superfluous if the outward appearance and the essence of things directly coincided.Science abstracts rational principles [essence] from appearance to comprehend it. Most critiques of Marx mistakenly assume that essence and appearance must directly coincide, and therefore “prove” that Marx was obviously wrong. Similarly, appeals to our common humanity or to philosophical dualism assume the same direct coincidence, and so also “prove” that Marx was obviously wrong. Such “proof” is compelling for us denizens of capitalism who are dragooned into being “at home in the estranged outward appearances of economic relations, … which seem the more self-evident the more their internal relationships are concealed from it, although they are understandable to the popular mind”.
wrote:My point was precisely that you can't just follow any predetermined precepts and avoid moral complexity, including conflict and violence.Hang on, you just recommended a morally safe “predetermined precept” for me, and everyone else, to follow as fallback default.Secondly, your “moral complexity” remains trapped inside a philosophical “problem”, the sort of intellectualization that treats all things abstractly.Marx, as scientist, always re-applies his abstractions back upon the arena of human practice from which he abstracted them. Scientific abstraction is his analytical beginning, and not his end [just like Hegel].Scientific abstraction’s ascent back into the concrete is Marx’s scientific practice, which ultimately discloses analytic abstraction to be an indispensable functional tool—a necessary intermediary to human practice, to which it remains the vulnerable but testable subordinate.By contrast, your philosophical “moral complexity” stance, remains scientifically sterile, unless you are prepared to complete the circle, and actively treat your abstraction as a testable scientific foundation—the analytical residue of a preceding descent from the concrete world of practice into a workable scientific principle.Instead, you consider your philosophical work done and dusted, mistaking the end for the beginning, frozen paralytic at the only doorstep to comprehension.To then sublimely take solace in having uttered an abstract philosophical profundity [which is scientifically worthless, because practically untestable] becomes an impediment to actual comprehension.The essence of human practice is to overcome dualistic problems, and not rest content with contemplation of their ineffable complexity. Hegel first recognized the social driving force of dualistic problems because they insistently demand resolution. For that discovery, Marx forever revered the man.And we socialists have only one purpose under capitalism—to solve capitalism’s insistent dualistic problems—to transcend capitalism’s own solutions that can never solve, but instead haunt the mind as intractable abstract complexities. Human practice has one abstract goal: to comprehend and solve “complexity”.
wrote:they are guidelines for living, widely accepted because they work.Ignoring the obvious fact that “guidelines" are pre-determined philosophical precepts, I assume that you are referring to necessary human cooperation as something that transcends all societies.In which case, your socially transcendent “guidelines for living” are widely accepted only because they are essential to social reproduction as a whole, upon which we all [capitalist and worker, lord and serf, master and slave] depend. That’s why we are able to make a meaningful abstraction in the first place.Now, morality of the socially-transcendent type is ahistorical, or historically transcendent, morality. It can only transcend history if it remains true to the timeless condition of society which, however autonomous its stages, remains itself always and everywhere subservient to nature, upon which society’s continuing survival ultimately depends. Thus, historically-transcendent morality can only be the practical morality that functions to carry out the nature-imposed necessity for all societies to reproduce themselves.On the contrary, capitalism only indirectly carries out that nature-imposed necessity for its society to reproduce itself, but instead directly carries out the socially-imposed necessity for capital to reproduce itself.What residue, of historically-transcendent morality remains, is an historically practical scientific problem. If left to abstract philosophy alone, it becomes meaningless “complexity” when necessary social functionality has been hijacked to work in the interests of the capitalist class against the rest of us. That turns it into the socially necessary annihilation of historically-transcendent morality.When it comes to abstract thoughts on the amount and nature of any remnant universal morality that survives under capitalism, your hunch, or gut feeling, or hope, or desire or thought is just as good, or bad, or indifferent as anyone-else’s.
