Marx, and the myth of his ‘Materialism’
- This topic has 305 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
YMS wrote:Anyway, we agree, even if you are loathe to admit it.
We do? Brilliant!I knew you'd come round to arguing for the democratic control of our physics and maths.Well done, Young Master Smeet!
Also a long quoute from Albert of which this is part “A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us.
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:LBird wrote:OK, robbo, benefit of the doubt and all that, and I'll assume once more that you really do want to understand Marx.blah blah blah …LBird cut the crap and answer directly the challenge I posed:Show me how the internal structure and logic of the theory itself corresponds to a capitalist dynamic and reflects the class relations of capitalismYou are beginning to sound like a capitalist politician being interviewed on telly in your capacity to evade straightforward questions
Throwing childish tantrums, because you neither understand Marx, nor want your beloved bourgeois ideology exposing, is no answer to ignorance, robbo.
LOL LBird. Its hardly throwing a "childish tantrum" to ask you stick to the point and directly answer the question asked of you instead of evading it as you always do in the end. But OK its pretty clear that you cant and dont want to answer the question and that for all the emotively charged flak you throw up , the only one who is hiding anything is your good self – namely your own inability to address that question. Its ironic, though, that you call yourself an "idealist/materialist". Your crude reductionism is more reminiscent of the mechanical materialism of the Leninists
LBird wrote:YMS wrote:Anyway, we agree, even if you are loathe to admit it.We do? Brilliant!I knew you'd come round to arguing for the democratic control of our physics and maths.Well done, Young Master Smeet!
I've always argued for that. But with you accepting that the 'material substrate' of 'inorganic nature' exists and is non-uniform, I believe I can rest my case.
LBird wrote:I knew you'd come round to arguing for the democratic control of our physics and maths.Well done, Young Master Smeet!I'm intrigued LBird. How is this "democratic control "of physics going to be exercised? Could you give us some indication of the practical procedures that need to be put in place to affect this "democratic control" in a global population of 7 billion people? Will there be a global vote on String theory for example and could you explain what the purpose of that vote will be?
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:YMS wrote:Anyway, we agree, even if you are loathe to admit it.We do? Brilliant!I knew you'd come round to arguing for the democratic control of our physics and maths.Well done, Young Master Smeet!
I've always argued for that. But with you accepting that the 'material substrate' of 'inorganic nature' exists and is non-uniform, I believe I can rest my case.
Yeah, I've been arguing for 'idealism-materialism' for the last 2 years here.It's surprising that it has taken you so long to see the word 'materialism' in the term 'idealism-materialism', but nobody's perfect. I should have mentioned it, before now, I suppose.The key thing is, this view, that 'physics and maths' (along with the rest of the means of production) can come under our democratic control, is the perfect philosophical complement to the SPGB's politics, of arguing that socialism can only come about when a majority vote and act for it, and that the role of the party is to develop class consciousness amongst other workers.The 'materialists', however, oppose democracy and want elite control of physics. This is, of course, what the Leninists also argue, but it is the perfect philosophy for them, because that is their politics, and their physics reflects their politics.Materialism is a philosophy for elites and ruling classes.
LBird wrote:Materialism is a philosophy for elites and ruling classes.That doesn't follow, as I have demonstrated.Idealism-Materialism would suite them just as well.
LBird wrote:The key thing is, this view, that 'physics and maths' (along with the rest of the means of production) can come under our democratic control, is the perfect philosophical complement to the SPGB's politics, of arguing that socialism can only come about when a majority vote and act for it, and that the role of the party is to develop class consciousness amongst other workers.Once again, can you explain how this "democratic control" over physics and maths will be organised in a communist society of 7 billion people? What form will it take? Will 7 billion people be voting on thousands of new theories and why will this be necessary?
LBird wrote:The 'materialists', however, oppose democracy and want elite control of physics. This is, of course, what the Leninists also argue, but it is the perfect philosophy for them, because that is their politics, and their physics reflects their politics.Materialism is a philosophy for elites and ruling classes.Once again can you explain how and in what sense an "elite will control physics"? Since in communism everyone will be free to pursue whatever line of interest that they want, what barriers do you envisage being placed on those who have an interest in Physics in developing that interest? Also, do you think physicists belong to the same "elite" of those who are knowledgeable in, say, biochemistry i.e. who know a lot about biochemistry becuase they are interested in it and have studied it? Do you not consider that instead of there being one fictional social elite in the form of "the scientists" there will be multiple functional elites in the sense that there will be a social division of labour and that it is pretty difficult for an accomplished physicist to also become an accomplished biochemist, for example. Finally the Communist Manifesto talked of communists being in the "vanguard" of the workers movement. Do you think Marx was an "elitist" for saying this? Was he not just expressing the view that communists could be differentiated from other workers by the fact that they held communist ideas?By the same token, do you not think specialists in physics or biochemistry in a communist society could be distinguished friom non specialists on the grounds that they have a greater understanding of their respective subjects. Since it is impossible for any one individual to understand in depth everything, we are all bound without exception to be ignorant in most things and therefore defer to those who knows these things better than us Or perhas you consider that in communism there will be no specialisation and that each and every one of us is capable of becoming omniscent and that we can do away with the social division of labour completely. Obviously we would need to be omniscient if we are to democratically vote on the whole gamut of scientific theories otherwise how would we know what we are voting about. If you dont know what, say, String theory is about how can you determine whether it is "true"or notI would be interested in your views on these various matters LBird , if you have any that is
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:Materialism is a philosophy for elites and ruling classes.That doesn't follow, as I have demonstrated.Idealism-Materialism would suite them just as well.
I'm afraid that you're wrong on this one, YMS.We have to situation our 'philosophies' within the societies which produce them.'Materialism' is suited only to a class society, because a ruling class produced this view of nature.'Idealism-materialism' is suited only to a democratic society, like socialism, because it allows politics into property.So, the bourgeoisie produced materialism, and the proletariat have produced idealism-materialism.
The bourgeoisie also produced philsophical idealism, it depends on the time, place and the exigencies. They've also produced post-modernism, there is no timeless essential bourgeois ideology. Recuperation is always a possibility of any idea.
Young Master Smeet wrote:The bourgeoisie also produced philsophical idealism, it depends on the time, place and the exigencies. They've also produced post-modernism, there is no timeless essential bourgeois ideology. Recuperation is always a possibility of any idea.In fact, I'd add the (rough) national philosophic schema:Britain: EmpiricismFrance: RationalismGermany: Idealism.UNited States: Pragmatism
Young Master Smeet wrote:The bourgeoisie also produced philsophical idealism, it depends on the time, place and the exigencies. They've also produced post-modernism, there is no timeless essential bourgeois ideology. Recuperation is always a possibility of any idea.Something tells me that you're not getting the hang of this, YMS.We're not talking about 'idealism', but 'idealism-materialism'.Let's not revert to ahistoric, asocial physics or sociology.That's where we came in, and, if Marx's great insight is into anything, it's into the socio-historic production of our world.'Recuperation' is just another term for 'ditch the specifics, ideas rule'. I'm surprised at you using this concept, since it's idealism, through and through.
LBird wrote:We're not talking about 'idealism', but 'idealism-materialism'.Let's not revert to ahistoric, asocial physics or sociology.That's where we came in, and, if Marx's great insight is into anything, it's into the socio-historic production of our world.'Recuperation' is just another term for 'ditch the specifics, ideas rule'. I'm surprised at you using this concept, since it's idealism, through and through.Indeed, I was simply saying that in different times and different places, the ideas expoused by the bourgeoisie have differed, recuperation, last I checked was more a case of ditch the ideas, rulers rule, á la "marxism, last refuge of the bourgeoisie" etc. The ruling class could talk idealism-materialism (in fact, they'd love the vapidity of the term) all day long, while robbing it of any meaning/effect.
YMS wrote:The ruling class could talk idealism-materialism (in fact, they'd love the vapidity of the term) all day long, while robbing it of any meaning/effect.I'm surprised at you calling Marx's concept of 'theory and practice' vapid. It's the centrepiece of his philosophy.The ruling class can't talk idealism-material, even for one minute, never mind all day long.Even here, when you ask the materialists, 'what is the ideology that informs your practice?', they shrivel away from the question, like Dracula from garlic.Once the bourgeoisie allow 'consciouness and being' to be re-united in a society that claims to be democratic, they're heading for the exit. They can allow it as much as Dracula can allow the blood-doners to stop giving.They'll either ditch 'democracy' or ditch 'theory and practice'.An authoritarian regime claiming to employ 'practice and theory' would suit them best……errrm… what's 'modern physics' like?… elitist induction… now, who'd argue for that, and claim to be a socialist?
robbo203 wrote:LBird wrote:The key thing is, this view, that 'physics and maths' (along with the rest of the means of production) can come under our democratic control, is the perfect philosophical complement to the SPGB's politics, of arguing that socialism can only come about when a majority vote and act for it, and that the role of the party is to develop class consciousness amongst other workers.Once again, can you explain how this "democratic control" over physics and maths will be organised in a communist society of 7 billion people? What form will it take? Will 7 billion people be voting on thousands of new theories and why will this be necessary?
LBird wrote:The 'materialists', however, oppose democracy and want elite control of physics. This is, of course, what the Leninists also argue, but it is the perfect philosophy for them, because that is their politics, and their physics reflects their politics.Materialism is a philosophy for elites and ruling classes.Once again can you explain how and in what sense an "elite will control physics"? Since in communism everyone will be free to pursue whatever line of interest that they want, what barriers do you envisage being placed on those who have an interest in Physics in developing that interest? Also, do you think physicists belong to the same "elite" of those who are knowledgeable in, say, biochemistry i.e. who know a lot about biochemistry becuase they are interested in it and have studied it? Do you not consider that instead of there being one fictional social elite in the form of "the scientists" there will be multiple functional elites in the sense that there will be a social division of labour and that it is pretty difficult for an accomplished physicist to also become an accomplished biochemist, for example. Finally the Communist Manifesto talked of communists being in the "vanguard" of the workers movement. Do you think Marx was an "elitist" for saying this? Was he not just expressing the view that communists could be differentiated from other workers by the fact that they held communist ideas?By the same token, do you not think specialists in physics or biochemistry in a communist society could be distinguished friom non specialists on the grounds that they have a greater understanding of their respective subjects. Since it is impossible for any one individual to understand in depth everything, we are all bound without exception to be ignorant in most things and therefore defer to those who knows these things better than us Or perhas you consider that in communism there will be no specialisation and that each and every one of us is capable of becoming omniscent and that we can do away with the social division of labour completely. Obviously we would need to be omniscient if we are to democratically vote on the whole gamut of scientific theories otherwise how would we know what we are voting about. If you dont know what, say, String theory is about how can you determine whether it is "true"or notI would be interested in your views on these various matters LBird , if you have any that is
It appears LBird hasnt got any views on these at all so we can safely dismiss his whole argument as pie in the sky twaddle
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.