Gnostic Marxist
- This topic has 446 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 3 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
You are right, Alan. Treat this as an Off Topic subject where those interested can amuse themselves by playing Whack-a-mole, waiting for some absurd idea to come up and then whacking it down. Our feathered friend seems content to play the mole.
“…The workers’ job is essentially a simple one. It consists in recognising that all previously-existing ruling groups have hindered the development of a truly social production and distribution; in recognising the necessity for doing away with production and distribution as determined by the profit and power needs of special groups in society who control the means of production and the other social power sources. Production has to be shifted so that it can serve the real needs of the people; it has to become a production for consumption. When these things are recognised, the workers have to act upon them to realise their needs and desires. Little philosophy, sociology, economics and political science are needed to recognise those simple things and to act upon the recognition…” Anton Pannekoek
More from Pannekok:
“The methods of production have continuously changed with the progress of time. Whence came these changes? The manner of labor and the productive relationship depend upon the tools with which people work, upon the development of technique and upon the means of production in general. Because in the Middle Ages people worked with crude tools, while now they work with gigantic machinery, we had at that time small trade and feudalism, while now we have capitalism; it is also for this reason that at that time the feudal nobility and the small bourgeoisie were the most important classes, while now it is the bourgeoisie and the proletarians which are the classes.
It is the development of tools, of these technical aids which men direct, which is the main cause, the propelling force of all social development. It is self-understood that the people are ever trying to improve these tools so that their labor be easier and more productive, and the practice they acquire in using these tools, leads their thoughts upon further improvements. Owing to this development, a slow or quick progress of technique takes place, which at the same time changes the social forms of labor. This leads to new class relations, new social institutions and new classes. At the same time social, i. e., political struggles arise. Those classes predominating under the old process of production try to preserve artificially their institutions, while the rising classes try to promote the new process of production; and by waging the class struggles against the ruling class and by conquering them they pave the way for the further unhindered development of technique.
Thus the Marxian theory disclosed the propelling force and the mechanism of social development. In doing this it has proved that history is not something irregular, and that the various social systems are not the result of chance or haphazard events, but that there is a regular development in a definite direction. In doing this it was also proved that social development does not cease with our system, because technique continually develops.”
ALB, your quote from Pannekoek still supports Marx’s social productionism, social theory and practice, conscious activity, as the source of the change in society.
It doesn’t support the materialist theory that ‘material’ (tools, matter, stuff) produces consciousness.
ALB’s quote from Pannekoek wrote: “…the tools with which people work…tools, of these technical aids which men direct…the people are ever trying to improve these tools…Thus the Marxian theory disclosed the propelling force and the mechanism of social development.” [my bold]
The ‘propelling force’ is not ‘matter’, but social production, which requires both consciousness and being.
Being doesn’t come before consciousness (materialism); nor does consciousness come before being (idealism).
Conscious activity, social production, active humanity changes ‘matter’ and ‘consciousness’.
So, Pannekoek agrees with Marx, as do I.
You don’t.
robbo203 wrote: “…You make no allowance for the influence of material factors. They don’t even exist from your standpoint…”
That’s because, according to Marx’s standpoint, there are only ‘ideal-material factors’.
Human activity unifies the ‘ideal and ‘material’, so that it is illegitimate to separate the unity back into isolated factors.
You might disagree with Marx, robbo, and that’s fine as a political and philosophical stance to adopt, if you decide you want to do so.
But… it’s not Marx’s, nor Dietzgen’s, nor Pannekoek’s, nor mine.
You need to query the origins of your ideas, because they haven’t originated in Marx’s views.
So, Pannekoek agrees with Marx, as do I.
You don’t.How can you possibly agree with Marx or Pannnekoek, LBird, when your perspective is a purely idealist one, and when you don’t allow for any interaction whatsoever between lower and higher levels of reality such as brain and mind or individuals and society?
For you, dinosaurs have never existed outside the idea of dinosaurs we hold in our minds – even though the fossil record refutes your idealist claim. You reject science and yet you want the entire world population to vote on tens of thousands of scientific theories for some obscure reason you have never made clear, rather than just have people agree to disagree on the merits of any theory
That’s because, according to Marx’s standpoint, there are only ‘ideal-material factors’.
Yes, and you reject completely the influence of the material side of this configuration. For you, material factors don’t exist. That makes your standpoint an idealist one in complete opposition to Marx’s standpoint and the standpoint of the SPGB
Robbo, now he is saying that we don’t think that “men make history” but that tools and machines do !
That would make us as nutty as him with his view that the Earth was once flat but that “human consciousness” later made it spherical and could make it flat again if a majority voted for this. Even Richard Dawkins’s “ignorant lunatic” wasn’t that looney.
robbo203 wrote: “Yes, and you reject completely the influence of the material side of this configuration. For you, material factors don’t exist. That makes your standpoint an idealist one...”
I predicted that you’d make this false allegation earlier!
You’re never one to disappoint those who know your materialist ideology, and its ideological belief that there are only two basic philosophies.
It’s been well proved by quotes on this thread from Marx, Dietzgen and Pannekoek, that human conscious activity, social production, requires a unity of theory and practice.
ALB quote “Robbo, now he is saying that we don’t think that “men make history” but that tools and machines do !”
Well, ALB, if ‘men make history’, you have to admit that they are conscious and make.
So, the active side is humans, not ‘ideas’, not ‘matter’, not ‘the ideal’, not ‘the material’.
I’m so glad that you’ve finally accepted Marx’s ideas.
So, ‘who‘ consciously makes ‘science’, ALB, and ‘how‘?
Or are you going to revert to ‘matter makes science’ or ‘scientists make science’, and argue against democracy within science?
Why do you disagree with Marx’s democratic politics, ALB? Why do you want ‘the material’ to dictate to humanity? How do you know this ‘material’ if the rest of us don’t? If we all know it, why can’t we vote on it?
You haven’t a clue about Marx’s views, have you, ALB? Your 1975 article on Dietzgen shows that then, and you haven’t developed in nearly half a century, so I won’t hold my breath that Marx’s social productionism will finally have any effect on you.
Democratic Socialism, not ‘matter’, not an elite’.
I note, LBird, that my Pannekoek reference goes without comment that your seeming fixation with quoting Marx’s philosophical understanding is unnecessary for workers to make the socialist revolution, which was an earlier observation of mine that despite his contributions, the workers doesn’t require Marx or the turgid interpretations of his acolytes such as yourself to know what is in their interest and how to make a revolution by the intellectual intervention of any elite.
LBird
If it is a “false allegation” that I made that your position is a purely idealist one and that you don’t allow for the influence of the “materialism” side in your “materialism-idealism” configuration then how come you come out with statements like this:
Nothing can have a ‘real existence independent of humanity because humans couldn’t know it..
So dinosaurs, according to you couldn’t possibly have had a real existence independent of humanity – even though the fossil record unequivocally shows they really existed and then became extinct millions of years before humans existed. What is this if not sheer idealism on your part?????
There are many other examples I could cite to back up my claim. For example, you believe individual consciousness was the product of social consciousness in the sense that you think that social consciousness is what enables us to experience individual consciousness. Clearly, this is idealist bunkum. Social consciousness profoundly shapes individual consciousness – the contents of our thoughts – but it cannot account for our capacity to experience consciousness as individuals. On the contrary social consciousness presupposes this capacity
You’re never one to disappoint those who know your materialist ideology, and its ideological belief that there are only two basic philosophies.
No, I don’t. I have explicitly stated there are 3 NOT 2 basic philosophies in this regard:
MECHANICAL MATERIALISM – causation is one way, from matter to ideas, from the brain to thoughts, from individuals (and so-called human nature) to society. I reject this materialism as does the SPGB despite your relentlessly misrepresenting the views of the Party
IDEALISM – causation is one way too but in the opposite direction. Ideas create reality so that “Nothing can have a ‘real existence independent of humanity, because humans couldn’t know it” This is your position.
EMERGENCE THEORY/HISTORICAL MATERIALISM/MARXISM causation is two way. Higher-order phenomena, such as the mind, are dependent or supervene on lower-order phenomena (in this case the brain) but are not reducible to the brain. This is because the former is able to exert downward causation along with being subject to upward causation. Mental states can influence neurophysical states but neurophysical states can also influence mental states. There is a reciprocal relationship between them. Same with the relationship between individuals and society. This is my view
As an idealist, you reject the very idea of a reciprocal relation. So individual consciousness or the individual is, for you, simply the product of social consciousness or society and can’t possibly contribute to social consciousness. You completely lack any notion of a dialectic going on between these two constructs. You are a thoroughgoing idealist determinist and have shown this over and over again, despite paying spurious lipservice to Marxism
‘You are a thoroughgoing idealist determinist and have shown this over and over again, despite paying spurious lipservice to Marxism’
Exactly robbo – I have believed this from the start. It is curious that many intelligent people (like our feathered friend) have no insight into their own ideological motivation and perspective.
“Exactly robbo – I have believed this from the start. It is curious that many intelligent people (like our feathered friend) have no insight into their own ideological motivation and perspective.”
Quite so, but that truism isn’t exclusively applicable to LBird…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.