Haines: it is nowadays felt that scientific knowledge does not "derive" from experimentation, but is instead validated by it
my comment: who feels that way? Not dialectical materialists. You can acquire knowledge through education but someone would have had to commit to experiment prior. Even Mao On Practice understood that. We know that most giant stars end up a black hole and yet we can still detect cosmic matter emitting from it whose radiation reaches even our far away world. Scientist can now only theorize what that can be. One day we'll know when the result complies with other things that we already know through experimentation... "Everything is knowable, only that there will always be things that we don not yet know..." either Marx or Engels said that. Haines: More to the point, one always and necessarily enters into scientific activity with a set of axioms, concepts, and theories, even observational data, that are presumed true and find their justification from outside the area of study. These theoretical entities are "unobservables" and are not immediate effects on the sensory apparatus of a passive observer. my comment: Here you may be touching on philosophical apriorism. You counter pose observational data with axioms and concepts as if one did not derive from the other. Necessity urges us to look and discover or invent. We postulate based on contact with matter if we seek the truth. We will never know everything since the universe is infinite. But we can get closer to the TRUTH.... and that is why we observe and experiment. Not so for a "passive observer". Materialists do not "presume" truth from "unobservables" we can only speculate on that. We can presume truth from the observable. Haines: This is the position of scientific realism. One reason Marx is seen today as a scientific realist is his interesting point about whether one works from concrete particulars to general truths or the other way around, and he concluded that it must go both ways, and which is currently employed depends on what one happens to be up to. my comment: Then, this is why dialectical materialists are NOT "scientific realists" and you should not include Marx into your club of idealists. Surely "it must go both ways" and that is why we can predict communism. Now we must agree that primitive communism is man's original relationship...... and so we have our premise. Haines: Althusser (whose relation with the PCF was not always happy) is a good example of one (reified) side of this dialectic, for he insisted that because structures modify the effect or function of concrete particulars, we must start with them. my comment: What "structures"? If "structures" here are a material thing [empirio-critics have been know to confuse material with the abstract] then it can modify the effect of anything concrete and hence our thinking if we want to be sure. Haines: Althusserians were subject to criticism by the historicists (an ambivalent word, but here those who start from concrete particulars) who insisted that historical individual action (intentionality, freedom, class struggle vs. economic determinism) was foundational. This debate got nowhere, my comment: Hopefully people here on the MLL have gotten somewhere insisting that class struggle is the revolutionary (for lack of a better word) engine for change in class society. Don't some of us agree to go out among the people and fight for quantitative change, at least. Haines: Doctrine I suppose refers to any teaching, and not specifically that of science. my comment: Yes sir, but the "doctrine" Scientific Socialism is necessarily "that of science" or it becomes "presumed". It is based on Historical Materialism. Haines: Doctrine is literally the content of teaching, or, I suppose, more broadly, refers to the transmission of past truth, whether or not we find it truthful today. my comment: Let's say that we still find it "truthful today"! Haines continues: Science, on the other hand, refers to an organized body of knowledge presumed to be true at least today, and definitions science refer to the the characteristics of knowledge that make it scientific, not the manner of its transmission. my comment: So let me see if I got this right....... doctrine "refers to the transmission of past TRUTH" and science is knowledge "presumed to be true at least today". So then we should hope that science becomes doctrine some day. But what about tomorrow or in the next ten years..... Is the theory of gravity or relativity still more or less true. Is the sun still the center of our solar system. Is socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the ruling class [the proletariat] viable? So, scientific doctrine, since you've now forced me to combine the two, was at least "past truth" yesterday and hope that tomorrow it was truth today. Either way, truth does not change merely through its transmissions. Haines: And so far in all of this, there's no "application." Much of science, such as the historical sciences and theoretical sciences, are not applied. The study of the Big Bang and black holes are hardly applied sciences, and yet surely are scientific. my comment: Science is applied everywhere, that is why we go through the trouble of observing and experimenting and discovering, so that we may better our livelihood despite the Imperialists. Scientists observe and pounder the universe because we are curious and insist on knowing the intricacies of nature. We bite into the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Inventing axioms, and concepts apriori is an excellent past time but wouldn't you rather look through a telescope or microscope? Haines: However, "everyone" today (I put aside the issue of religion, but plenty of religious folks claim to be materialists in their worldly activity, and some even claim to be Marxist, which I find strange) is a materialist, and so what is gained? To say that Marxism is scientific will not impress the man on the street, who naturally wants to know what it could possibly have to do with him, and, more specifically, with his ills and his possibilities for dealing with them. my comment: That is exactly the point! That mankind now is "a materialist" is evidence of our advancement in perception beyond the dark ages. Something material in our thinking was bound to change, don't you think? It wouldn't be enough to merely identify Marxism with science. Every man is an individual because we live as such. A free man reacts at will. If our world is collapsing around us and our children are sent to war and the capitalists laugh at us and call us stupid and losers...... we will want to culminate once and for all who the losers really are. Let me say this about day dreaming. It is part of our being and it is so vital that we look upon the future and about how things should be. Theorizing and developing concepts is the same... it is necessity, and out of necessity we conceptualize. The subjective is a reflection of our material world even if we get it wrong. The correctness of it is tested in practice. f580 --- On Wed, 3/3/10, frankenstein580 <frankied...@yahoo.com> wrote: From: frankenstein580 <frankied...@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [MLL] Let us begin To: "For the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism" <marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu> Date: Wednesday, March 3, 2010, 6:18 PM Haines: "I grant that the proletarian is not just a worker in general, but an industrial worker. When Marx wrote (he had no objection to the word "workers"), the proletariat was new in terms of its size and level of consciousness, and the industrial worker seemed about to make history. But what today distinguishes the term "proletariat" from "industrial worker"? I'm ignorant of the difference. If there is none, I suggest jettisoning the former as unfamiliar and unncessary jargon. If there is a difference, is there not some familiar word that would capture it adequately?" my comment: I agree with Engels definition of the proletariat.... it need not only be an industrial worker. --- On Wed, 3/3/10, Haines Brown KB1GRM ET1 <bro...@historicalmaterialism.info> wrote: From: Haines Brown KB1GRM ET1 <bro...@historicalmaterialism.info> Subject: Re: [MLL] Let us begin To: "For the reaffirmation of Marxism-Leninism" <marxist-leninist-list@lists.econ.utah.edu> Date: Wednesday, March 3, 2010, 6:06 PM On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 10:48:39AM -0800, frankenstein580 wrote: > Marx is dead, all power to the proletariat! so if Marx is from the > 19th century and we're now in a "different contemporary world" > [three cheers for the obvious] why is it that I can't "understand " > what Haines' is saying about this issue. What is Haine' > difference between "studying Marx" or merely "learning" the from > him.... NOT! No, we are probably in full agreement. I'm not sure out of context what I was getting at with this distinction of studying and learning. Out of context, they seem the same thing. > Haines: > > Quoting Marx > > “No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for > > which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations > > of production never appear before the material conditions of their > > existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself.” > > This seems to me _the_ core issue, which is the contradiction of the > capitalist (or any) system and the basis for action. > > AND THEN A FURTHER NOTE ON THIS MATTER [f580]: > > But since his method employs the concept of contradiction, we are in > a circle. At some point the notion of contradiction has to be > abstracted as a conceptual tool. Marx does not do that; Engels > tried. > > my comment: > > Please show us where "Engels tried" to "abstract" the "notion of > contradiction" "as a conceptual tool". > > Poor Haines, the "notion of contradictions" drives him in > "circles". He would rather remove this "conceptual tool". But he > can't.... that is, except in his mind, since I agree with Engels > that "nature is the proof of dialectics". So what's wrong with > understanding things within their contradictory modes. Things don't > remain in any state for long..... they transform. Wow, things are spinning out of control here. I suspect you are not objecting to my initial remark here about contradiction being the core issue as long as you understand that I did not mean to imply that it is a "problem", but rather that it is of fundamental importance. In other words, I'm trying to put contradictions front and center in our conception of historical materialism. Did you misunderstand this or disagree with it? Then what I thought was a simple and uncontentious point about Engels looms as controversial. In books like Dialectics of Nature, Engels offered a set of generalizations about the fundamental motion of matter. This is what I meant by "abstract". That is, an inference of a general truth from the observation of concrete instances. While this approach is a matter of contention today, I was not trying to bring that in, but only tried to describe how Engels went about doing things. I won't trouble to pull Engels off my self, for I suspect we don't disagree about his method. As for contradiction more specifically, Engels seems to have used the same approach. He gave examples of where quantitative change gave rise to qualitative change to offer a generalization about the relation and interdependence of what he called opposite kinds of change. As a generalization of observations, this is not problematic, and some notable scientists back in the '30s drew upon it as such. However, I do have a problem with it in that it seems rather a description than an explanation of contradiction. But this problem was not implied in my remarks. The point relevant here is that in any case, I not only insisted upon the reality of contradictory processes, but feel this conceptual tool is too neglected. But since you do bring up the issue: I'd argue that you can't "prove" the truth of a generalization by observing nature, but only increase one's confidence in one's predictions. I would further argue that our basic ontological assumptions about the nature of the world cannot be inferred from (passive) observation, but arise from action. To take a little example, psychologists realize that our knowledge of causation is pre-cognitive and arises from our haptic sense, our physical interaction with the world. As I mentioned before, a reification of laws (contradiction or otherwise) as a causal agent no longer stands up to scientific inspection. Furthermore, we now know very well that the data or values we observe are a function of our frame of reference, which adds another complication. I believe representing the world in terms of contradictions should be central in Marxism because it explains both the possibility and the necessity for action in a given situation, not because it is a law, but because it points to the interdependence and unity of opposite processes. I don't know if this point is clear. What I try to do is to put our understanding of contradiction on a firmer scientific basis (which I'll spare you here) so that it supports explanation rather than just a generalizing description of social dynamics, however valid that generalization might be. It is not I who is driven in circles by contradiction, for I was referring to Engels' logic. I did not intend to criticize him for the idea, but only the method by which he arrived at it. And this was a forebearing criticism, for his method only falls flat in terms of contemporary science. In his day, he had little choice in the matter. But let me make a bold statement: I don't think anyone so far has really explained contradictions, which is why I spend so much time thinking about them. That there are contradictions, no one doubts, but the aim should be explanation, not just generalization. I don't think I need to apologize for this effort, even if some feel it is not necessary or would disagree with my findings. > my comment: > > Because...... the proletariat is not merely a worker and Marx chose > the old term to convey a particular and new condition for these > "modern" workers"....... To whom it may concern, pay attention: I don't necessarily disagree. I get the impression that in Marx's time the term "proletariat" referred to factory workers, as distinct from, say, day workers or agricultural labor. What I was getting at was whether this distinction still needs to be made. I suppose the usual justification is that industrial workers are potentially and historically the most advanced sector of the working class because of the circumstances of labor. I see the logic of this position and not inclined to offer an alternative hypothesis, but still I have concerns that arise out of actual circumstances and trends today. I hesitate to speculate about them because it would invite distractions from what I'm supposed to be doing. I grant that the proletarian is not just a worker in general, but an industrial worker. When Marx wrote (he had no objection to the word "workers"), the proletariat was new in terms of its size and level of consciousness, and the industrial worker seemed about to make history. But what today distinguishes the term "proletariat" from "industrial worker"? I'm ignorant of the difference. If there is none, I suggest jettisoning the former as unfamiliar and unncessary jargon. If there is a difference, is there not some familiar word that would capture it adequately? > What is the proletariat? > > The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from > the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of > capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole > existence depends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing > state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition. The > proletariat, or the class of proletarians, is, in a word, the > working class of the 19th century.[1] But here's the problem. If we peel away the rhetoric, there's nothing here that distinguishes the industrial worker from a worker in the service industry, and yet I feel your concern is only or primarily for the former. If this is so, then the quoted definition seems inadequate to your purpose. Haines _______________________________________________ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list _______________________________________________ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list _______________________________________________ Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list Marxist-Leninist-List@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
