The Nature of "Truth"

[Connolly]

Counter-revolutionary No. 1


Can you please back down a little on the flaming? I don't dislike you, I don't hate you as a person, I just disagree with your politics.

No - I wont back down on the flaming.

Im the one under attack - and the opposition dont even have any reasons only their own fucktivity :angry:


Anyway, as it stands now more people seem to agree with the fact that you are not a revolutionary leftist. You can say that everyone who says you aren't a revolutionary leftist isn't one themselves, but that's a bit childish....

No. Its not childish at all.

Whats childish is that you started a thread for my removal with reasons you cant even justify yourself.

And - I dont give a crap how many people disagree. The thread has been running for some time now without these "other people" coming up with any valid reason what soever.

Numbers mean nothing.

Counter-revolutionary No.2


You're the only one that apparently "knows the meaning of class consciousness".

Really?...............you definitly dont know what it means for sure as we concluded from your first mention of it.

See any ghosts recently :lol:


Even all the famous theoreticians throughout the years are in disagreement with you (including Marx! ).

How would you know? - since you dont know what it means. :lol:


Again, tell me where you developed this theory of "false consciousness" from. I'm still waiting for the answer to that one, and I'm guessing you won't give it because it was you yourself that came up with it.

Again - I say - what difference does it make, you are clearly finding it hard to refute.

Not just that - but massouds definition has established not only that its part of Marxist theory - but that my use of the term stands.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.


I don't understand how you can say that your theory fits in with marxism at all. I mean, Marx himself supported these uprisings.

Marx himself thought capitalism was at its progressive end. (for the 204th time). :rolleyes:


We exposed you for what you really are and now you're whining about it. You've proven that your theory is completely baseless, as you have yet to back it up with any substantial support, and so instead you accuse your accusers.

You have exposed fuck all but your own stupidity.


Class consciousness doesn't come through productive forces, and Marx never claimed it to be so. Trade-unionist consciousness comes through productive forces and nothing more.

:lol:

You really are fucking stupid.

Again - I ask - how the fuck would you know since you dont even know what class consciousness is?


You're about as supportive of class struggle as Loknar. All you both really do is recognize the fact that down the line sometime there's going to be a socialist revolution. Recognizing this doesn't make one a socialist.

As AS already said - thats false in and of itself.

You also think revolution is at some point in the future too.

When will you ever drop that stupid argument, it makes not a shred of sense or difference.


Maybe everyone here should be restricted then, eh? You know, revolutionary leftists? Wait, being a revolutionary leftist is grounds for admission into the cc and not grounds for restriction. Nice try.

But your not a revolutionary leftist since you support, knowingly or otherwise bourgeois revolution.

A revolutionary leftist supports a socialist revolution - you do not since you advocate "perception" over objective conditions.

Your no better than a revolutionary Islamic party. Void of objective justification.

Therefore - supporting that which is not proletarian socialist revolution you are a bourgeois revolutionary.

You should be kicked out on your arse.


Yeah! Revolutionary leftists are traitors! See that everyone? You're all traitors.

Yeah - see that "everyone" - he's a bourgeois revolutionary. :lol:


"If these objective material conditions existed now, then class consciousness would exist. But since class consciousness doesn't exist, these conditions dont!"
"But how can you tell if class consciousness exists?"
"Because it will exist when these objective material conditions exist!"
"But how can you tell when these objective material conditions exist?"
"Because class consiousness exists!"

He's confused himself the poor little thing, Awwww.........

See how much of an idiot you are - you cant even comrehend a very simple argument without making a blundle of it.

:rolleyes:


So as long as society is producing commodities, then it's not obsolete?

They arnt "just" commodities - but revolutions to the systems of production.

A truck - for example - is a revolution to the systems of distribution. :rolleyes:


Well, you seem to be the only one subscribing to this unique "definition" of class consciousness. You have still failed to provide where you got this definition from, even after repeated inquiries.

Where did I get it from?............... Marx himself.

All you can come up with is "where did I get that from, where did you get this from".

What sort of an argument is that.

Its worth fuck all if you cant refute it.


Good luck proving that one.

My proof is on the pudding. You do not support socialist revolution - full fucking stop.


Well, what are the objective conditions? How will we know when we're "allowed" to be "truly class conscious"?

When the working class recognise their production - and therefore the socialist base of society.

What they are exactly - who knows.


Fixed.

What an insult to Marxist theory you have just said. :o

To say that the proletariat and the bourgeois work together hand in hand to bring about communism is an insult to Marx himself.

You should be ashamed of yourself calling yourself Marxist. <_<


If your stance is "marxist" then support your theories with some quotes from Marx with links to the sources.

CL provided them for me. Have a look.

(share CLs glasses for this one).


So does Loknar&#33; Maybe you should go hang out with him in OI.

Maybe you, massoud, severian and CL should go hang out with Publius - you are all remarkably similar.

Anti-revolutionary Trash.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mr Gradgrind speaketh, harken to him (since he is from the Christian University of God - Springfield Campus -- but he is, alas, a rather confused postulant):


I deal in facts

And facts, of course, have nothing to do with the truth?


If TRB wants to present his/herself as someone who follows Marx&#39;s "proper tradition", then s/he should expect that others here are actually going to call bullshit on his/her pro-bourgeois ravings

And you learnt this scriptural approach to &#39;truth/facts&#39; from Marx, I suppose, who, being a scientist, never once tried to innovate (oops, like Red Banner, shame on him&#33;&#33;)?

As with all mystics, novelty is your enemy.

And, as with all traditionalists, the &#39;truth/facts&#39; are all in the past; anyone who even thinks to question the received view is to be pilloried as a &#39;bourgeois raver&#39;.

I suspect that had you been around in the 1850&#39;s, you&#39;d have had a go at Marx for his temerity to question the socialism of his day.

"If it was good enough for Babeuf, its good enouigh for...."

You conservatives do not change, do you?

Which, I think, is a rather fitting fate to have to befall the erstwhile followers of Heraclitus....

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Red B: well done for questioning basic assumptions; we need more of this not less.

I do not agree with all you say, but it is repfreshing to see a little of the scientific spirit (Marx himself showed) hit these threads. As with all scientific advance, the most resistance comes from those who defend &#39;orthodoxy&#39; in the name of science&#33;

I suspect they would try to get Marx himself kicked off the CC for daring to question Ricardo....

However, a good place to begin re-thinking our ideas on that useless, non-Marxist term &#39;false consciousness&#39; is here:

http://marxmyths.org/joseph-mccarney/article.htm

Let me know what you think.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KC:


No reason to be a confrontational asshole, although I&#39;m guessing I&#39;m "guilty by association" because I don&#39;t draw lines of division based on people&#39;s opinions of dialectics.

In that case I withdraw my apology, and note that it is you who is confronting Red.

So, in your case, if I am an asshole, it takes one to recognise one.

But, I would not be so uncomradely as to call you names (note the use of &#39;if&#39;).

However, it does confirm my hypothesis: dialectics is a root cause of sectarianism, and the main reason why you mystics are so unreasonable.

Cheers&#33; :lol:

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26 2006, 03:05 PM

I deal in facts
And facts, of course, have nothing to do with the truth?
No, facts do not have anything to do with "the truth".

A truth is a statement about facts, which happens to match those facts.

There are many truths - my name is Luís Henrique, today is a sunny day in Brasília, Italy beat France in the 2006 world cup - but there is no thing such as "the Truth".

Falsehoods are just denials of those prosaic little truths: "my name is Peter", "it is raining today in Brasília", "France won the last game in the 2006 world cup" (or, "Ghana beat Argentina" in that same last game).

Since the only reasonable definition of "truth" that I know is "a statement that is compatible with observed facts", it seems that there is no such thing as "The Truth".

It would to have to be a statement about observed facts that emcompassed all of them, and matched them all.

Such statement was never made, and I would say it is impossible to make it.

Or is your definition of "truth" different?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Miles (out of his depth):


Neither am I. She&#39;s like one of those pre-packaged pop bands, where all the songs have essentially the same beat and rhythm, and the lyrics are all variants on a theme.

Rosa Lichtenstein: RevLeft&#39;s Ashlee Simpson.

Nice piece of dialectics Miles (and from someone who would not dream of being original himself -- but the man to call if you want a few more quotes from Holy Writ).

I&#39;d retort that you are the George Bush of Marxism, but that might not reflect too well on Dubbya, so I won&#39;t.

[KC]

However, it does confirm my hypothesis: dialectics is a root cause of sectarianism

I haven&#39;t had a problem with it. It seems like people like you who actually separate people based on this idea are those that are creating the sectarianism.


, and the main reason why you mystics are so unreasonable.

I&#39;ve never even commented on dialectics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


No, facts do not have anything to do with "the truth".

A truth is a statement about facts, which happens to match those facts.

Is this a fact, or just a truth?

If it is not a truth, then we can ignore it.

If it is a truth, what corresponds to it?

If it is a fact, then why does it look like a statement?

If it is not a fact, then nothing corresponds to it, and we can ignore it, too.


There are many truths - my name is Luís Henrique, today is a sunny day in Brasília, Italy beat France in the 2006 world cup - but there is no thing such as "the Truth".

Er, yes...soooo?


Or is your definition of "truth" different?

I do not have one, and deny it can be defined.

[But what happened to that dialectical claim that &#39;The truth is the Whole&#39;?]

Anyway, LH, thankyou for that impressive dislpay of how to go wrong in philosophical logic.

Not needed (we have enough dialecticans littered around the place to do that quite well already), but thanks anyway.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KC:


I haven&#39;t had a problem with it. It seems like people like you who actually separate people based on this idea are those that are creating the sectarianism

Eh?


I&#39;ve never even commented on dialectics.

Who said you had?

[Connolly]

L.H.


But the way you are conducting you polemic, basically insulting anyone who disagrees with your very peculiar interpretation of Marx, is not going to earn you a good reputation or convince anyone that you have a firm theorical grasp.

Look - LH - I did not start calling people "anti-worker", "pro-bourgeois". "ant-proletariat".

Those who are attempting to get me kicked out started this nonsense.

If I start calling you a "fascist" or "petty bourgeois" I dont think it would be acceptable.

From the very begining they have started insulting me calling me a "petty, common, liberal anti Marxist".

I will not stand for this rubbish - and - infact - its glaringly obvious they are infact enemies of the working class.

So - yes - maybe I am dealing with this abit badly - but so are they.

They cannot justify these names - I can.


You don&#39;t have a monopoly on Marx interpretation, and you are clearly distorting Marx&#39;s reasoning.

Im distorting Marx&#39;s reasoning?

How so?

I believe I have been true to Marx&#39;s word and Marx&#39;s interpretation of society.

They have not been.

They are continuously trying to distort the meaning and purpose of class consciousness.

I will attempt to cool my anger however.

KC


Well, seeing as Marx&#39;s view of class consciousness is in agreement with mine, and since I apparently don&#39;t know what "class consciousness" is, then neither does Marx.

What - that once one "percieves" a ghost its true?

Once one "feels the power of jesus" its true?

Nonsense


Because I want to see you back up your theory and your claim that it&#39;s marxist. You have failed to do so, despite repeated requests.

The definition backs it up as being Marxist.


Arguments that are based on circular logic refute themselves.

Well it takes one with no logic to conclude such a conclusion from my argument.

You clearly have no logical capability.


Your use of the term doesn&#39;t stand at all. The only way that your use of the term is similar to what Massoud posted is in name and nothing more. Moreover, Massoud went on to say that it was used only by Engels and only in one letter. Of course, you didn&#39;t know that it was used by either Marx or Engels, because you surely didn&#39;t base your entire theory off of a paragraph in a letter, so you co-opted it and twisted what Engels said to fit with your theory.

The definition has described it as being part of Marxist theory. It stands because it exactly describes your position.


Please, I&#39;ve got way better shit than that to smoke.

Like what? try figure out this so called "self refuting" logic of mine.

Ridiculous. Your whole basis for revoltion now is refuting historical materialism itself. Not to mention the meaning of class consciousness.


And it could have been if the working class was more organized.

"or it could have been if it was actual class consciousness" - it wasnt.


Obviously. What you can&#39;t seem to comprehend is the fact that I see that revolution is possible in the future, that it won&#39;t happen by itself, and that workers must organize to overthrow it.

What difference does it make how we think its going to happen.

It hasnt - so neither your, nor my theory are 100% valid.

My one is more logical than yours however.


This kind of shit warrants warning points and was completely unprovoked. I&#39;ll have to PM an admin.

And the basis of starting this whole thread wasnt?

Remember who started calling who what first.

Now we realise there is no basis for it.

Your comments are just as "insulting" as my ones.


I didn&#39;t make a "blundle" of it. I exposed your circular logic.

You exposed your own lack of logical ability - thats all.


But you listed commodities. Commodities aren&#39;t "revolutions to the systems of production".

What you&#39;re basically saying is that commodity production is revolutionary to the systems of production, and that as long as the system revolutionizes itself, capitalism will continue. So we can take from that logic the fact that you believe as long as commodities are produced, the systems of production will be revolutionied and capitalism will continue. Capitalism will continue as long as commodities are produced.

You deducted that ridiculous conclusion yourself.

And - it clearly makes no sense.

The systems of production dont revolutionize themselves - rather, a particular social system does. So when that social system can no longer revolutionise production - its overthrow is necessary.

Presently - technological devlopment is revolutionised under bourgeois systems of production. That can, and will lead to a finite end of what its capable of. When the further develoment of production is no longer possible by the production relations, bourgeois state and property relations - they then become the reactionary class. The proletariat assumes control as the revolutionary class, recognising their actual production at this point, and demanding the revolutionary overthrow of society.

But - as it stands - the bourgeois remain the revolutionary class (in terms of production).

Marx believed they were not. He believed production and the further technological potential of the bourgeois were at an end.

He, was wrong. And the bourgeois mode of production continues to be revolutionary.

It is - really - that simple.

You just dont want to believe it (or plain and simply cant understand society and historical materialism).

You are at fault - not me.

[And - let me remind you - that is the very last time im explaining that, Im fed up trying to teach you the basics of Marx&#39;s social analysis]


Then quote him&#33; I would like to see the quote regarding class consciousness that you subscribe to.

Im too lazy. Go find it yourself.


When one makes an unsubstantiated claim, there is nothing wrong with demanding proof of them.

Like wise.

Show me proof that I dont have revolutionary beliefs.


So the objective conditions you&#39;re talking about are class consciousness? We&#39;ll become class conscious when we become class conscious. That&#39;s your theory?

We become class conscious when the objective conditions exist.


Actually, he explained them quite well. You took the quotes and skewed them for your own purposes; you even failed to address his explanation of the quotes.

Thats because he took Marx&#39;s assumption that capitalism was at its progressive end as a means to revolutionise production.

He was wrong - and CL is outdated.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Quite frankly - Im fed up with this.

Go - fuck me out - I dont really think its worth the effort of going around in circles with these people.

If the CCs purpose is to defend that kind of thinking - I dont really care any more.

My fucking phone bill will be massive arguing with these creatures - and, as im sure many have seen if they have followed the course of this thread - their whole basis for my removal is rubbish. Not just that - but they have turned things against themselves.

I will only respond if someone can bring something new to the table. So far, all we have done is go around in circles because some (id**t) cant understand anything.

Thats me done.

Fuck me out - if thats they way its going to be.

Go massoud - get it overwith. :lol:

Im pissed off with this.

[Luís Henrique]

Is this a fact, or just a truth?

It is neither a fact, neither a truth. It is a concept.


I do not have one, and deny it can be defined.

So, why, and how, do you use the word?


[But what happened to that dialectical claim that &#39;The truth is the Whole&#39;?]

Don&#39;t know. Doesn&#39;t seem to me to mean anything, since neither its subject nor its predicative seem to name anything defineable. "Whole" what?


Anyway, LH, thankyou for that impressive dislpay of how to go wrong in philosophical logic.

Not needed (we have enough dialecticans littered around the place to do that quite well already), but thanks anyway.

I don&#39;t remember being aggressive toward you. Can you be a little more civil, please?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Look - LH - I did not start calling people "anti-worker", "pro-bourgeois". "ant-proletariat".

Those who are attempting to get me kicked out started this nonsense.

Which I acknowledge you didn&#39;t. But "they did it first" is not a very good reason. Especially when your reaction happens to be hitting people who also didn&#39;t start calling you anything.


Im distorting Marx&#39;s reasoning? How so?

I would say you are.

If the objective conditions for a proletarian revolution aren&#39;t given, but only the objective conditions for a bourgeois revolution, I think it is safe to say that Marx would have commended, "engage in the bourgeois revolution", not "wait until the bourgeois complete their revolution, so that you can start your own". At very least, I doubt very much that he would decry people engaging in bourgeois revolution (in the aforementioned conditions, at least), as "enemies of the proletariat".

That&#39;s how I believe you are distorting his reasoning.

Which doesn&#39;t mean that I believe you should be punished for that.


I believe I have been true to Marx&#39;s word and Marx&#39;s interpretation of society.

I am pretty sure that you do believe so.


They have not been.

Quite possibly. I am also sure that they believe otherwise, though.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


It is a concept.

So, when you disguised it as a statement, you were being, er, ironic?


So, why, and how, do you use the word?

If truth could be defined, it would have to be a stipulative definition -- if it were not, then one could always ask &#39;Is this definition of truth itself true?&#39;

So in order to acknowledge a non-stipulative definition as true, you would already have to know what the word &#39;true&#39; meant.

Of course, you could set up an inductive definiton, or re-define it in terms of satisfaction conditions, but even then, the inferences required to set these up would all be truth-functional, and hence the &#39;definiton&#39; would either be otiose, or circular.

[And if it were stipulative, you would have to know when its wording had been written down correctly, or said correctly, before you could accept it. To do that you would need to know a truthful representation from one that was not. So, the stipulative definition would be otiose, too.]

And you do not need to know how to define a word to know how to use it. [If that were not the case, you would have problems with words like &#39;word&#39; and &#39;definition&#39;.]


Don&#39;t know. Doesn&#39;t seem to me to mean anything, since neither its subject nor its predicative seem to name anything defineable. "Whole" what

I agree (but I thought you might not -- so, I am am glad we see eye to eye on at least one thing).


I don&#39;t remember being aggressive toward you. Can you be a little more civil, please?
Apologies, in the context of this thread, I misunderstood your tone.

[Luís Henrique]

It is a concept.

So, when you disguised it as a statement, you were being, er, ironic?

Well, no. I am not that clever.

Here is my statement:


A truth is a statement about facts, which happens to match those facts.

I guess I should have worded it differently:

I call "a truth" a statement... ... those facts.

Which is a statement, and a true one.

Or:

Let&#39;s define "truth". Do you agree that we "a truth" is a statement... ...those facts.

Which is a proposal of a definition.

But I think you know that I was just using common language, instead of a specialised one (in which you will no doubt always beat me).


If truth could be defined, it would have to be a stipulative definition -- if it were not, then one could always ask &#39;Is this definition of truth itself true?&#39;

So in order to acknowledge a non-stipulative definition as true, you would already have to know what the word &#39;true&#39; meant.

Of course, you could set up an inductive definiton, or re-define it in terms of satisfaction conditions, but even then, the inferences required to set these up would all be truth-functional, and hence the &#39;definiton&#39; would either be otiose, or circular.


I see. Very well reasoned.

But, then, in which sense, and contexts, can we use the word? You do use the word, don&#39;t you? What do you mean, when you use it, supposing that you do?

I would say that some "statements" are in reality definitions, and the "truth" cathegory doesn&#39;t apply to them:

A triangle is a poligon of three sides

Of course, does not mean anything else that we call a poligon that has three sides "a triangle", not "a boogie-woogie".

So,

A truth is a statement about facts, which happens to match those facts.

would be neither "true" nor "false", but just a conventional definition.


And you do not need to know how to define a word to know how to use it. [If that were not the case, you would have problems with words like &#39;word&#39; and &#39;definition&#39;.]

Sure. But even if we do not know what the definition is, it shouldn&#39;t stop us from trying to explain, in a reasonable way, what are we trying to convey when we use it. Especially when we are asked to do it.


I agree (but I thought you might not -- so, I am am glad we see eye to eye on at least one thing).

Good. Let&#39;s try to make this a little less ressemblant to a hooligan fight.


Apologies, in the context of this thread, I misunderstood your tone.

Apologies accepted.

Luís Henrique

[KC]

Well it takes one with no logic to conclude such a conclusion from my argument.

You clearly have no logical capability.

Then tell me how that little dialogue was incorrect.



What difference does it make how we think its going to happen.

Good point. I guess it doesn&#39;t matter, because no matter what we do now, it won&#39;t change anything&#33;



And the basis of starting this whole thread wasnt?

Remember who started calling who what first.


Sure, I think you hold the politics of a bourgeois liberal, and I&#39;m not afraid to call you out on it. Of course, me calling you a liberal is based on an analysis of your politics. Calling me a "fucking idiot" is a flame, plain and simple.



Marx believed they were not. He believed production and the further technological potential of the bourgeois were at an end.

Then why does his own economic theory not support this? Have you read Capital?


You deducted that ridiculous conclusion yourself.

Well, all I did was put your statements together. You said that "neither aircraft, cars, TVs, mobile phones, computers and automation even existed in his time." And you then claimed that these aren&#39;t "Just" commodities, but revolutions to the systems of production. So here you claim that commodities are revolutions to the systems of production.

I called you out on it by saying that commodities aren&#39;t "revolutions to the systems of production" then put your statements together logically to form the whole of what you are saying, which turned out to be this:

"What you&#39;re basically saying is that commodity production is revolutionary to the systems of production, and that as long as the system revolutionizes itself, capitalism will continue. So we can take from that logic the fact that you believe as long as commodities are produced, the systems of production will be revolutionied and capitalism will continue. Capitalism will continue as long as commodities are produced."

We could take this sentence by sentence. I&#39;ve already proven that you said that commodity production is revolutionary to the systems of production, and you obviously believe that as long as capitalism revolutionizes itself, that it will continue (this can be supported by you calling the bourgeoisie the "revolutionary class"). So, because all of these statements are supported by what you have said, we can logically conclude that since commodity production is revolutionary to the systems of production, and that as long as capitalism revolutionizes itself, that it will continue, that you believe that capitalism will continue as long as commodities are produced.

Commodities are revolutions to the systems of production.
Revolutions to the systems of production will perpetuate the system.
THEREFORE commodity production perpetuates the system.

A=B=C therefore A=C.

There, I spelled it out for you in simple terms.



Im too lazy. Go find it yourself.

I should have guessed that you would say such a thing. If you would like me to stop "attacking" you then I suggest you back up your theory. You have failed to do so so far, and now you&#39;re even claiming to be "too lazy" to, yet you&#39;re really worked up over this debate. I don&#39;t understand why you wouldn&#39;t want to substantiate your claims and end this debate if it&#39;s making you so angry.



Show me proof that I dont have revolutionary beliefs.

"Prove that I don&#39;t have revolutionary beliefs&#33;"
"Prove that god doesn&#39;t exist&#33;"

I suggest you check out the Burden of Proof thread in the religion subforum as to why you are required to prove that your views are in line with Marxism and why a lack of this proof automatically disproves your claim.



We become class conscious when the objective conditions exist.


Provide a quote by Marx to that extent. Show me that your views are in line with Marxism, as you claim.

Also, I would like to add that my original statement that you quoted still stands, as you have defined class consciousness as the time when we can recognize proletarian production. I asked you when we become class conscious, to which you replied "When the working class recognise their production".

So the working class will recognize proletarian production when they recognize proletarian production. This is essentially what you have said. The proletariat will become class conscious when they become class conscious. That doesn&#39;t tell me anything, and it&#39;s essentially a nonanswer and a way to escape from the hole you trapped yourself in.

Let me ask the question again: When will the proletariat become class conscious? In addition, when will we know what we perceive to be "proletarian production" is the true "proletarian production"? Because of course anyone right now can think of how they want socialism to look, but since they&#39;re not class conscious according to you, these conceptions are false ones. How will we know when we&#39;re truly class conscious? When we know what proletarian production should look like? How will we know if your conception of proletarian production is the correct one, a "true" one based off of "true" class consciousness, instead of a "false" one based off of a "false" class consciousness?


We become class conscious when the objective conditions exist.

Ah, here we go. This answer again. Let&#39;s update the dialogue:

"If these objective material conditions existed now, then class consciousness would exist. But since class consciousness doesn&#39;t exist, these conditions dont&#33;"
"But how can you tell if class consciousness exists?"
"Because the proletariat will know what proletarian production will look like&#33;"
"But we can say how proletarian production could look right now."
"But you have a false consciousness, so those ideas are false ones&#33;"
"But how will we know when our conception of proletarian production is the true one?"
"When the proletariat is class conscious&#33;"
"But how can we tell if class consciousness exists?"
"Because you&#39;ll know what proletarian production will look like. I already told you that&#33; Why do I have to keep repeating myself?"
"Ok....but when will we become class conscious?"
"When objective material conditions arise&#33;"

Let&#39;s recap.

-Objective material conditions create class consciousness. We don&#39;t know what they are but we know that they create class consciousness.
-We&#39;ll know when we&#39;re class consciousness when we know what proletarian production will look like.
-Therefore, we&#39;ll know what proletarian production will look like when objective material conditions exist.
-We&#39;re currently not class conscious because objective material conditions don&#39;t exist.
-Since we aren&#39;t class conscious we have a false consciousness, and therefore a false conception of proletarian production.
-We will transform from false consciousness to true consciousness when objective material conditions arise, because when objective material conditions arise we will know what proletarian production will be.

So my question stands. If we don&#39;t know these objective material conditions, how do we know when we reach them? How do we know when our consciousness is "true" and not "false" and therefore how do we know that our conception of proletarian production is "true" and not "false"?

EDIT: TRB, could you please explain how your theory fits in with this quote from the Communist Manifesto:

"The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat."


Luis Henrique


If the objective conditions for a proletarian revolution aren&#39;t given, but only the objective conditions for a bourgeois revolution, I think it is safe to say that Marx would have commended, "engage in the bourgeois revolution", not "wait until the bourgeois complete their revolution, so that you can start your own". At very least, I doubt very much that he would decry people engaging in bourgeois revolution (in the aforementioned conditions, at least), as "enemies of the proletariat".

I think you are misunderstanding him. He is calling proletarian revolutions bourgeois revolutions because they are occurring when objective material conditions don&#39;t exist. For example, he is against the Paris Commune, the Spanish Civil War, the Russian Revolution, the Situationist Insurrection, etc...

This stance is, obviously, anti-worker, as he is denouncing workers taking power.

[Luís Henrique]

If the objective conditions for a proletarian revolution aren&#39;t given, but only the objective conditions for a bourgeois revolution, I think it is safe to say that Marx would have commended, "engage in the bourgeois revolution", not "wait until the bourgeois complete their revolution, so that you can start your own". At very least, I doubt very much that he would decry people engaging in bourgeois revolution (in the aforementioned conditions, at least), as "enemies of the proletariat".

I think you are misunderstanding him. He is calling proletarian revolutions bourgeois revolutions because they are occurring when objective material conditions don&#39;t exist. For example, he is against the Paris Commune, the Spanish Civil War, the Russian Revolution, the Situationist Insurrection, etc...

Yes, I understand. My point was, even if those effectively were bourgeois revolutions, Marx would have supported them if he believed that there were no "objective conditions" for a proletarian revolution. In that, I believe he is in fact distorting Marx&#39;s ideas.

Luís Henrique

[KC]

Yes, I understand. My point was, even if those effectively were bourgeois revolutions, Marx would have supported them if he believed that there were no "objective conditions" for a proletarian revolution. In that, I believe he is in fact distorting Marx&#39;s ideas.

Ah, I see. I thought you were implying that these were revolutions conducted by members of the bourgeoisie, such as the French Revolution. That&#39;s why I thought you were misunderstood, but now I understand what you&#39;re saying, and I agree with you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


I guess I should have worded it differently:

I call "a truth" a statement... ... those facts.

Which is a statement, and a true one.

Or:

Let&#39;s define "truth". Do you agree that we "a truth" is a statement... ...those facts.

Which is a proposal of a definition.

But I think you know that I was just using common language, instead of a specialised one (in which you will no doubt always beat me).

I am sorry, but this is no clearer.

For example, how can a phrase (i.e., "a truth") be a statement? A phrase cannot be true or false, but a statement can.


But, then, in which sense, and contexts, can we use the word? You do use the word, don&#39;t you? What do you mean, when you use it, supposing that you do?

Well, I use it like you do everyday. What else can I say?


A truth is a statement about facts, which happens to match those facts.

Now you should know that this &#39;definition&#39; has faced more problems than most books have words.

For one: to say what the facts are that &#39;match&#39; the said &#39;satement&#39; you have to refer back to the original &#39;statement&#39;, and once you do, this &#39;definition&#39; becomes:

"A truth is a statement about what that statement says, which happens to match that statement."

And the word &#39;match&#39; is far too vague.

For example, if I were to say that &#39;George Bush is an Olympic Champion&#39; -- well, the name matches the man, and the predicate matches someone. In order to tighten this up, you would have to say that this would be true only if it were the case that Bush was an Olympic Champion, using the orignal statement to define its own truth-conditions, again.

Sure you might want to appeal to &#39;the facts&#39; but they are characterisable only linguistically, and that locks you in a circle.

This and other intractable problems have always afflicted &#39;the correspondence theory&#39;.


Sure. But even if we do not know what the definition is, it shouldn&#39;t stop us from trying to explain, in a reasonable way, what are we trying to convey when we use it. Especially when we are asked to do it.

Sure, but there is a limit, and with logical notions like &#39;truth&#39; we hit a brick wall (for the reasons I spelt out).

[KC]

Could we have this philosophical discussion split off into a thread in Philosophy?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

KC: I was about to PM LH on that very point.

Could you move your comments to the &#39;OI&#39; section too?

[Luís Henrique]

That depends then dosnt it. Marx never got to see what other forms of the capitalist state might emerge such as what Stalin lead.

Sure. So there is a complete new problem, about which Marx could not have an opinion, since the problem didn&#39;t arise before he was dead.

Whatever opinion he might have had if he had lived 50 more years is immaterial: that is an empty counterfactual, useless except for role-playing.

So, no one can have a guess if he would have supported a pseudo-proletarian revolution after he was presented the results of the Russian Revolution. Perhaps yes (Stalinism surely developed the productive forces in Russia, quite probably more than Czarism would have if it was not overthrown), perhaps not (the human costs involved were not trivial).

Still, we know what he would have said about such pseudo-proletarian revolution without being presented the results of the Russian Revolution, and it was "yes, go for a bourgeois revolution".

***

I think there is an overall problem with your line of reasoning.

You are telling us that a proletarian revolution, in the present condictions, that you deem immature for socialism, will necessarily put into power "another exploitive class", that it would replace "one bourgeoisie for another".

However, in the case of the Russian Revolution at least, what was overthrown wasn&#39;t a bourgeois regime, but a feudal one. I don&#39;t know if this is your opinion also about the Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban, etc, Revolution, but I think it would important that you clarify it: were the regimes destroyed by such revolutions bourgeois or pre-bourgeois regimes?

***


Present society does just fine revolutionising production - we dont need bourgeois revolutions.

Yet, it seems that these do still happen.

However, you do quote Marx:


consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations to production

Where does the energy for a pseudo-proletarian revolution comes from, then? Which strange "consciousness" is this, that takes over so many people and make them fight to death against a regime? Does it stem from "the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations to production", or does it come from anywhere else, and, in this case, where from?


All we need to do is have a socialist one, and dont blame me if I dont want to participate in bourgeois revolution.

Fine, but it happens that you have expressed the idea that there aren&#39;t objective conditions for one. So, we live in a time where, a) it is too late for bourgeois revolutions; but, b) it is too early for proletarian revolutions. So, am I to deduce that we live in a time in which no real revolution can take place?

You have expressed, also, the idea that "Present society does just fine revolutionising production ". Of course, though, such "revolutionising of production" is disturbed when political revolutions - be them bourgeois, proletarian, or pseudo-proletarian - do happen. Should Marxists, to hasten the correct course of social revolution (revolutionising of production first, political revolution afterwards) support the repression of such untimely political revolutions?


As I maintained consistently from the very begining - no one actually has revolutionary class consciousness because the systems of production continue to advance

Finally, considering this, how do you think Karl Marx was able to write his works? Where did his ideas come from?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 08:12 PM
I&#39;m starting to wonder if this whole thing is an elaborate troll. Mostly from his style of "argument", but that panther avatar is oddly familiar too....
Bugaloo shrimp?&#33; nah... that guy wouldn&#39;t be able to find a book by Marx in a library, much less to find in it quotes that matched or seemed to match his reasoning...

I think that it is a debased version of redstar2000 own&#39;s debased version of Marxism.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH, I think this got lost in the move:





For example, how can a phrase (i.e., "a truth") be a statement? A phrase cannot be true or false, but a statement can.

Never meant to imply otherwise.

I used "..." as a sign for an ellipse in the statement, meaning that the remaining of the previous statement was to be considered unchanged.

Like this:

I call "a truth" a statement... ... those facts.

means:

I call "a truth" a statement about facts, which happens to match those facts.

This, of course, is a true statement, since I in fact do that; it is a fact that I do that.


Well, I use it like you do everyday. What else can I say?

I use it according to the definition above.

If I am not trying to be precise, I may use the expression "the truth", like in, "the truth is that George Bush is not an olympic champion". But in this case, it just means "it is a truth that George Bush is not an olympic champion", or "it is a true statement that George Bush is not an olympic champion". But I still know that "the truth" does not exist, and so, has nothing to do with facts. And that seems to me to be the way Miles was using the word in his post:


(Miles)

I&#39;ll leave "truth" to the truthologists from the Christian University of God - Springfield Campus. I deal in facts -- facts about what Marx and Engels said; facts about capitalism and class society; facts about the implications of one&#39;s political viewpoint.



Now you should know that this &#39;definition&#39; has faced more problems than most books have words.

Fine. Still, this is the way I use it everyday, and you have stated that you use it like I use it everyday. So, can we agree that this is, at least temptatively, what we both mean when we use the word "truth"? Or is your use of the disjunctive "a truth"/"the truth" different than that that I exposed above?


And the word &#39;match&#39; is far too vague.

For example, if I were to say that &#39;George Bush is an Olympic Champion&#39; -- well, the name matches the man, and the predicate matches someone.

I believe you answered that when you made the distinction between "phrase" and "statement".

Your statement about Bush boils down to:

A. There is a collection of elements called "Olympic Champions";

B. There is an element that belongs to the collection described in A, and the name of such element is "George Bush".

(I know that this probably can be worded in a more precise way, but my formal logic is somewhat rusty. So, if you believe that it is important to make that more precise, please do it.)

If we are allowed to see the complete list of the elements of the collection called "Olympic Champions", and the name "George Bush" is in such list, then the statement is true; otherwise, it is false.


This and other intractable problems have always afflicted &#39;the correspondence theory&#39;.

Fine. Is there a better theory available, and what is it?


Sure, but there is a limit, and with logical notions like &#39;truth&#39; we hit a brick wall (for the reasons I spelt out).

Fine. However, I have offered a definition, and you have said that you use the word not differently than how I do. So, unless you have a better definition (even allowing that mine is very, very bad), or that you argue that the word is meaningless, can we use my definition?

I will respond to it later; I am away for a few days.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH now:


I used "..." as a sign for an ellipse in the statement, meaning that the remaining of the previous statement was to be considered unchanged.

Like this:

I call "a truth" a statement... ... those facts.

means:

I call "a truth" a statement about facts, which happens to match those facts.

This, of course, is a true statement, since I in fact do that; it is a fact that I do that.

Earlier:


I call "a truth" a statement... ... those facts.

This is no ellipsis, it is major change.

Now it&#39;s a statement about facts, which matches those facts, but you do not say how we can individuate such facts, or indeed identify them, except by reference to the original statement, thus making your &#39;definition&#39; circular.


Still, this is the way I use it everyday, and you have stated that you use it like I use it everyday. So, can we agree that this is, at least temptatively, what we both mean when we use the word "truth"? Or is your use of the disjunctive "a truth"/"the truth" different than that that I exposed above?

I deny I use this word every day in the way you say, as I deny you do (since I do not use it according to a circular definition, and neither do you).

I used to George Bush example, not to set up an alternative theory, but to expose the faults in yours.


Your statement about Bush boils down to:

A. There is a collection of elements called "Olympic Champions";

B. There is an element that belongs to the collection described in A, and the name of such element is "George Bush".

If this is your gloss on my example, you are welcome to it, since I do not think it means this (since it turns predicates into the names of sets, or the names of the extensions of sets).

If on the other hand you are trying to give the truth conditions of this sentence (or even (a al Tarski), set up a satisfaction function), then your &#39;definition&#39; is circular once more. This is because, it would have to be true that what you say these terms &#39;match&#39; do indeed &#39;match&#39; them.

So you would need to know what truth was to know it was a good definition (as I pointed out to you before).


Fine. Is there a better theory available, and what is it?

The best one there is is the so-called &#39;disappearance/minimalist&#39; theory (as expounded by Paul Horwich in &#39;Truth&#39; (Oxford University Press, 1998, 2nd ed.), but even that does not work (for the same reasons).

Hence, I deny this term can be defined (or needs to be defined), and for the reasons I set out briefly in an earlier post.

Once more, we do not need a definiton to be able to use most of our words, and certainly none of our logical words.

[Luís Henrique]

This is no ellipsis, it is major change.

Like, The Communist Manifesto says:

"A spectre haunts Europe... ...workers of all countries, unite."

That&#39;s what I use "..." for, Rosa.


I deny I use this word every day in the way you say, as I deny you do (since I do not use it according to a circular definition, and neither do you).

Well. I asked how you used the word, and you answered that you used it like I do everyday. Now you say you don&#39;t. Unless you are playing some pseudo-dialectical game, as in "I use it in the same way you use it, but at the same time I don&#39;t", can you please explain how do you use the word "truth"?

Whether it is possible to define a word, or not, we need at least to agree to a certain level on what the word means, or we won&#39;t be able to use it in a meaningful way. And in this last case, it would be better if we didn&#39;t use it at all.


Hence, I deny this term can be defined (or needs to be defined), and for the reasons I set out briefly in an earlier post.

OK. Don&#39;t define it, then. Just tell us what do you mean, when you use the word "truth". Else, I will assume that the word is meaningless to you, and use it according to my own tastes, even if you can prove that this is a circular use.

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


Well. I asked how you used the word, and you answered that you used it like I do everyday. Now you say you don&#39;t.

Read what I said: I said you do not use it the way you say you do, and neither do I (so we do use this word the same way).


can you please explain how do you use the word "truth"?

Not really, since if you do not use it the same way as I do, then you will not be able to recognise a truthful answer from me.

[On the other hand, I have to assume you use it the same way as me, or I would not be able to understand your indicative sentences.]


OK. Don&#39;t define it, then. Just tell us what do you mean, when you use the word "truth". Else, I will assume that the word is meaningless to you, and use it according to my own tastes, even if you can prove that this is a circular use.

You can assume what you like, and you can go on using your circular &#39;definition&#39; just like people can continue to believe in the tooth fairy.

But, you might want to re-define your own defective use of the word &#39;define&#39; in that case, perhaps to mean &#39;whatever I like&#39; -- a bit like Humpty Dumpty in Alice Through the Looking Glass:


&#39;Certainly,&#39; said Alice.

&#39;And only one for birthday presents, you know. There&#39;s glory for you&#33;&#39;

&#39;I don&#39;t know what you mean by "glory",&#39; Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. &#39;Of course you don&#39;t -- till I tell you. I meant "there&#39;s a nice knock-down argument for you&#33;"&#39;

&#39;But "glory" doesn&#39;t mean "a nice knock-down argument",&#39; Alice objected.

&#39;When I use a word,&#39; Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.&#39;

&#39;The question is,&#39; said Alice, &#39;whether you can make words mean so many different things.&#39;

&#39;The question is,&#39; said Humpty Dumpty, &#39;which is to be master -- that&#39;s all.&#39;

http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm

[Luís Henrique]

OK, I assume that puts an end to the discussion, isn&#39;t it?

Luís Henrique

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


OK, I assume that puts an end to the discussion, isn&#39;t it?

Only if you are using words as I do, otherwise I do not understand what you just said.