Gnostic Marxist
- This topic has 446 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 3 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
alanjjohnstone wrote: “LBird, what do you think of Herman Gorter’s ‘Historical Materialism’”
Thanks for the link, alan. I’ll have a browse when I have some time.
On the whole, from what I’ve read before, Gorter and Pannekoek were in favour of social revolution, by which they seem to have meant that the associated producers would democratically control all social production, and opposed Lenin’s ‘materialism’, which places power in the hands of an elite (just as Marx argued ‘materialism’ would do).
Quote from Gorter:
“However, before we proceed to a clear statement of what historical materialism is, in anticipation of encountering certain prejudices and foreseeable misunderstandings, we would like to first of all say what historical materialism is not. For besides the historical materialism that is the doctrine of social democracy, a particular doctrine established by Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, there is also philosophical materialism, and various systems of that kind. And these systems, unlike historical materialism, do not address the question of how the mind is compelled by social existence, by the mode of production, technology, and labor, to proceed by way of determined paths, but rather the question of the relation between body and mind, matter and soul, God and the world, etc. These other systems, which are not historical but merely philosophical, attempt to find an answer to the question: what is the nature of the relationship between thinking in general and matter, or, how did thinking arise? Historical materialism, on the other hand, asks: why is it that, in any particular era, thought takes on one form or another? General philosophical materialism will say, for example: matter is eternal, and mind is born from it under certain conditions; it then disappears when its conditions no longer exist; while historical materialism will say: the fact that proletarians think in a different way than the possessing classes is a consequence of such-and-such causes.
General philosophical materialism asks about the nature of thought. Historical materialism asks about the causes of changes in thought. The former tries to explain the origin of thought, the latter its evolution. The former is philosophical, the latter historical. The former assumes a context in which there is no thought, no mind; the latter assumes the existence of mind. The big difference is apparent.” [my bold]
Can’t get a better critique of ‘materialism’ than that, alan.
It echoes Marx’s quote, which I gave earlier, if you want to compare the two.
I’m pleased you found it of some use.
For me, as you know from previous contributions, i find it difficult to incorporate philosophical concepts into practical politics. Gorter endeavours to do that in relation to the class struggles in Germany at the time.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “i find it difficult to incorporate philosophical concepts into practical politics”
It’s not surprising, alan, because someone else has been ‘incorporating’ them for you, and pretending that they haven’t, and that they don’t need to explain, and thus they encourage you to ‘just get on’ with ‘practice’.
Annndddd… dah, dah… there you go!
Of course, as Gorter said in your article, workers have to do their own ‘incorporating’, to allow their own self-development. And this is a social, not an individual, task. You only ‘find it difficult’ because someone has an interest in you finding it difficult.
So, your choice, alan. Ask some comrades to explain (I’m always here, if you want my help), and then ‘incorporate’ yourself the ‘concepts’ that you then think will advance the building of democratic socialism.
Bit of a clue – Marx, Pannekoek, Gorter… and thousands of Marxists since… argued that the ‘philosophical’ was not ‘materialism’.
Whatever you’ve been told about ‘materialism’, all your life, has been incomprehensible nonsense – that’s why you can’t comprehend it.
It is incomprehensible nonsense that science will constitute anything other than a ‘resource’ in the new society or that specialists will be able to have a position of power in an advanced , post-capitalist society, run by us all, locally, regionally, globally, in administration over resources and which is not a government over people.
Now you know, Alan, that being Mr Nice makes no difference. Our feathered friend will still shit all over you and denounce us as “general philosophical materialists” of the kind that Gorter criticised – and that Marx, Engels, Dietzgen and Pannekoek did and as we have always done ourselves. Who does he think kept alive the views of Dietzgen (which both Gorter and Pannekoek adopted) in the first half of the last century in face of criticism of the Leninists of the “Communist Party”?
The trouble for him is that Marx, Engels, Dietzgen, etc still regarded themselves as materialists and all of them accepted the reality of the world outside of human consciousness.
In 1937 Pannekoek wrote an article for the journal Science and Society entitled “Society and Mind in Marxian Philosophy” in which he set out his view of materialism simply and clearly.
“Marx’s theory of social development is known as the ‘materialistic conception of history’ or ‘historical materialism.’ Before Marx the word ‘materialism’ had long been used in opposition to idealism, for whereas idealistic philosophical systems assumed some spiritual principle, some “Absolute Idea” as the primary basis of the world, the materialistic philosophies proceeded from the real material world. In the middle of the nineteenth century, another kind of materialism was current which considered physical matter as the primary basis from which all spiritual and mental phenomena must be derived. Most of the objections that have been raised against Marxism are due to the fact that it has not been sufficiently distinguished from this mechanical materialism.”
“Marxism is not concerned with the antithesis matter-mind; it deals with the real world and the ideas derived therefrom. This real world comprises everything observable — that is, all that by observation may be declared an objective fact. The wage-relations between workman and employer, the constitution of the United States, the science of mathematics, although not consisting of physical matter, are quite as real and objective as the factory machine, the Capitol or the Ohio River. Even ideas themselves in their turn act as real, observable facts. Mechanical materialism assumes that our thoughts are determined by the motions of atoms in the cells of our brains. Marxism considers our thoughts to be determined by our social experience observed through the senses or felt as direct bodily needs.”
“The human mind is entirely determined by the surrounding real world. We have already said that this world is not restricted to physical matter only, but comprises everything that is objectively observable. The thoughts and ideas of our fellow men, which we observe by means of their conversation or by our reading are included in this real world. Although fanciful objects of these thoughts such as angels, spirits or an Absolute Idea do not belong to it, the belief in such ideas is a real phenomenon, and may have a notable influence on historical events.
The impressions of the world penetrate the human mind as a continuous stream. All our observations of the surrounding world, all experiences of our lives are continually enriching the contents of our memories and our subconscious minds.”At the same time he had been writing his criticism of Lenin’s version of materialism “Lenin As Philosopher”. In a chapter on “Middle Class Materialism” he wrote:
“Wherein then, do middle-class materialism and Historical Materialism stand opposed to one another? Both agree insofar as they are materialist philosophies, that is, both recognise the primacy of the experienced material world; both recognise that spiritual phenomena, sensation, consciousness, ideas, are derived from the former. They are opposite in that middle-class materialism bases itself upon natural science, whereas Historical Materialism is primarily the science of society. (…) For middle class materialism the problem of the meaning of knowledge is a question of the relationship of spiritual phenomena to the physico-chemical-biological phenomena of the brain matter. For Historical Materialism it is a question of the relationship of our thoughts to the phenomena which we experience as the external world.”
This is materialism we have embraced and propagated. See or instance here and here.
In arguing that the external world of a continuous stream of observable phenomena is entirely the creation of human consciousness, oxymoronic “Marxism-Birdism” (“Marx and I”) is not really a form of materialism, as our guano-producing friend himself tacitly acknowledges by using “materialism” as a term of abuse.
He is entitled to express his eccentric views but there is no justification for him attributing them to Marx and even less for his non-stop lying as to the kind of materialism we embrace.
Gorter can identify the ideological origins that constrains workers inability to act in their own interests – capitalist ideals – with the class consciousness that Gorter explains is created by the workers relationships with the the forces of production which results in revolt – the socialists’ materialism, LBird alludes to some other influence upon myself that takes upon the role of intermediary (to refer to another thread like a Catholic priest) and what i presume to be the “Leninist” Socialist Party “cadres”.
What i found refreshing with Gorter’s albeit overly-optimistic essay was that he related historical materialism to political action, and that is something i have asked LBird to do in the past – to make philosophy practical as Marx suggested in his quote, the philosophers have interpreted the world but the task is to change how the world runs. Gorter repeats it
“We have not in any case provided this analysis for the purpose of transforming the workers into philosophers…We have set ourselves another goal; we want to transform the workers into combatants. And into victors…”
Political abstention doesn’t seem to me to be Marxist and that is what LBird by his own admissions indulges in. I may well be wrong but his only socialist activity is solely on this forum. How will we change society if we continue to act as individuals and not as a unified class in a mass class party?
The purpose of the Socialist Party is not that complicated to comprehend and a 1939 article explains its role.
“The material world demands critical analysis in order that social problems are understood. The solution to those problems must be explained in unambiguous and practical fashion. Working-class problems are material; their solution, Socialism, consists of material proposals.”https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2021/03/has-christianity-solution-for-social.html
alanjjohnstone wrote: “The purpose of the Socialist Party is not that complicated to comprehend and a 1939 article explains its role.
“The material world demands critical analysis in order that social problems are understood. The solution to those problems must be explained in unambiguous and practical fashion. Working-class problems are material; their solution, Socialism, consists of material proposals.””
As even ALB agreed earlier, the word ‘material’ can and should be replaced by the word ‘social’. This is an ‘unambiguous and practical’ explanation, which makes it clear that human activity is involved, not ‘matter’. So,
““The social world demands critical analysis in order that social problems are understood. The solution to those problems must be explained in unambiguous and practical fashion. Working-class problems are social; their solution, Socialism, consists of social proposals.””
‘Social’ involves, as Marx (and Gorter) argued, both ideas and the world, both ‘ideal’ and ‘material’. ‘For Marx, ‘material’ doesn’t mean ‘matter’, it means human activity, conscious labour, social production.
Your failure to understand ‘philosophical concepts’, alan, is rooted in the ideology of ‘materialism’. It’s meant to hide things from you, to make things unclear, so that an elite can tell you, without you having to trouble yourself. It’s Lenin’s method, of the ‘special consciousness party’, which denies workers’ democracy.
It’s not too far-fetched, alan, to argue that…
“The purpose of the Socialist Party is not that complicated to comprehend and a 1939 article explains its role.
“The material world demands critical analysis in order that social problems are understood. The solution to those problems must be explained in unambiguous and practical fashion. Working-class problems are material; their solution, Socialism, consists of material proposals.””
…might as well say…
“The purpose of the Socialist Party is not that complicated to comprehend and a 1939 article explains its role.
“The magical world demands critical analysis in order that social problems are understood. The solution to those problems must be explained in unambiguous and practical fashion. Working-class problems are magical; their solution, Socialism, consists of magical proposals.””
The word ‘material’ might as well be the word ‘magical’, as far as you’re concerned. You don’t know what it means, as you’ve admitted many times, because ‘material’ is a philosophical term, not ‘common sense’, and so you’re bewildered by it.
What happens is that you and other workers baffled by ‘material’ assume it means ‘can be touched’, that it’s ‘stuff’ (as opposed to ‘ideas’). This suits the ‘magicians’ (sorry, ‘materialists’), just fine, because you’re not a ‘specialist magician’, which they claim to be.
Have you addressed the issue i put before you, LBird, that your own form of individualism is the antipathy of social action with you deliberate distancing from contributing to the purpose of transforming fellow-workers into combatants in the class war, preferring to engage in the mere contemplation of philosophical nuances.
Some of my comrades may find your fixation with Marx and material idealism would disturb the harmony of Party life but i’m not known for always seeing eye to eye with others in the Party about a number of questions. We do have room for members presenting contentious opinions. I myself am proof of that.
Or are you happy to continue to condemn yourself to your self-imposed political exile and take little or no participation in the self-emancipation of your class?
The oft-neglected Blanqui once said, “The new social organism cannot be the work of one single person, nor of a few people…It is the work of everyone…The river thus slowly takes shape from the confluence of a thousand springs, of billions of drops of water.”
alanjjohnstone wrote: “Have you addressed the issue i put before you, LBird, that your own form of individualism is the antipathy of social action with you deliberate distancing from contributing to the purpose of transforming fellow-workers into combatants in the class war, preferring to engage in the mere contemplation of philosophical nuances.”
I’ve always done this, alan, and I’ve always told you this, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, other than avoiding the issue of the ‘materialism’ to which you unconsciously adhere.
I’ve been a senior shop steward in a union, and I’ve been a member of the SWP, and I’ve attended numerous anti-fascist events, and whenever I’m in a pub with other workers who express an interest, I’ve talked to them about socialism and Marx. So, no ‘antipathy’ to ‘social action’ on my part.
The philosophical problem here, alan, is that you, like all workers infected with ‘materialism’, think ‘social action’ means ‘action’ (or, ‘practice’, or ‘doing stuff’).
‘Social action’ actually means ‘theory and practice’. Note, ‘theory and practice’. Not ‘practice’ alone, or ‘practice and theory’.
As a member of the SWP, I too was infected with ‘materialism’, and didn’t pay much regard, as you still don’t, to ‘philosophical nuances’. I got my theory, passively, from the party. Thus, I, like all workers infected with ‘materialism’, I was easy meat for the ‘professional revolutionaries’ of the party, who did concern themselves with nuances. The real term for ‘nuance’ is ‘politics’. They held political power over the membership. But, I’ve since learnt, and aim to share the benefits of my experience with other workers, who might be vulnerable to the ‘materialists’.
The upshot is, alan, that any ‘social action’ requires ‘theory’ up front, so that the ‘philosophical nuances’ are well understood and debated, because ‘philosophy’ determines ‘actions’.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “Some of my comrades may find your fixation with Marx and material idealism…”
No, alan, it’s ‘idealism-materialism’, in the order Marx gave it, social theory and practice, social production, consciously changing our world, inescapably linked concepts, not separate ‘material’ and ‘ideal’.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “…would disturb the harmony of Party life…”
Your naivety is touching alan! If I joined, my first task would be to drive ‘materialism’ as an ideology from the party. I’m sure many of the others are clearly aware of that, that my presence would do far more than ‘disturb the harmony’, and so would veto my joining. Which is their right, of course. The point is, I regard ‘materialism’ as a danger to workers and their efforts to build a democratic socialism. ‘Materialism’ has always sabotaged workers efforts, which is why the Leninist parties constantly spew out workers who join (as they did to me and all, in fact, every, other worker that I knew in them).
So, for you, this is a debate about ‘philosophical nuances’, which you admit that you don’t really understand.
I’ve tried to appeal to ‘democracy’ as grounds for discussion and reconciliation, even my joining, but the ‘materialists’ keep insisting that workers will not be allowed to democratically determine their own truth. The ‘materialists’ claim that there is a small elite, who should be allowed to get on with that scientific task, and people like you should keep their ignorant workers’ noses out of things, like physics, that don’t concern you.
For my part, alan, I think that you have to take an interest in these issues. I find your refusal to do so the real ‘individualism’ here. ‘Social action’ requires democracy, not individual ignorance nor elite specialists. And ‘science’ is a ‘social action’.
Gorter declares, “…Our intention is to give the working class the certainty that it has the truth, and confidence in its mental powers…”
What happens is that you and other workers baffled by ‘material’ assume it means ‘can be touched’, that it’s ‘stuff’ (as opposed to ‘ideas’).
Did you notice the sleight of hand here, Alan?
He defines “material” as stuff (which is actually the German word for “matter”) and then accuses us of holding that we think this is the ultimate reality. But just a few posts earlier there is this quote from Pannekoek which clearly states that ideas are an equal part of the “real world” :
“The human mind is entirely determined by the surrounding real world. We have already said that this world is not restricted to physical matter only, but comprises everything that is objectively observable. The thoughts and ideas of our fellow men, which we observe by means of their conversation or by our reading are included in this real world.”
This is what I learned from the Party and from the books by Dietzgen and even Fred Casey that the Party used to recommend. That we are matter-ists is just not true. There is even a quote from the early Marx about ideas becoming a material force when they grip the masses.
It also explains Engels’s remark that matter (Stoffe) is an abstraction, ie a part of the real world of a stream of phenomena that has been isolated and given a name.
Anyway, You must be a bit of a masochist to put up with his abuse!
Here is a recording of a Party talk on Dietzgen from 1982:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.