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
-
LBird wrote:jondwhite wrote:LBird wrote:As to the SPGB, not one single member or supporter has come out against 'materialism', so I think we can safely say that the whole party is infected with the hidden disease.
There is around three to four hundred members of the SPGB and only four or five have ever commented on materialism on this forum in topics you have also commented in. At most that is about one tenth in a hundred.
And this circumstance, of course, is mere coincidence!Let's see, let's use maths, so beloved of the physicalists!In favour of materialism: 1%.Opposed to materialism: 0%.Ignorant of philosophy: 99% ? (readers alone, or whole wider party?)Given what I've read, and what support I've conspicuously lacked, I'll bet that materialism is rife!It's just like the SWP! Except, then I was ignorant, and talked the same shite that's been talked here, which is why I can recognise it as such.But, just like the guy who was turned into a newt by the witch in MP, at least I got better.
as for just like the ignorant members of the SWP knowing nothing about philosophy, all SPGB members turning up to any SPGB meeting will be asked to vote on the same matters as any other SPGB members to take all SPGB decisions so hardly elitist.
JDW wrote:being generous, five out of three hundred make 0.01% not 1%.My maths must be really shit.I always thought that 1 in a 100 was 1%, y'know, one per cent, one in hundred.So, 3 in 300 would be, errmmm…. yeah, 1%, too.So, 5 in 300 makes about, roughly, nearly 2%.So, not being generous at all, JDW, but vastly underestimating the support for materialism in the SPGB.Not 0.01%, but nearly 2%. That's about 200 times bigger than your estimate, isn't it?I thought that 'the material facts' spoke to you guys, and consciousness played no part?Perhaps 'matter' has had an active week this week, and is now tired out and taking a well-earned rest from advising the materialists 'what to say', on this very thread?Poor old matter, eh?
LBird wrote:It's elitist, through and through, which Marx warned about. The materialists will always divide society into two, the smaller part dictating to the larger part.as will the idealists and the dualists and the stuff monists, if the desire arises, I don't think you've demonstrated this is a particular feature of materialism, which is the claim that exerything, including our thoughts, is made of matter. It makes no claim, in itself on how that matter is shaped, transformed, etc.Also, I'd note that materialism, the claim that the world is made of matter, is not an exact fit with any particular method of science, e.g. empirisim, positivism, pragmatism, etc.
Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, wrote:IIIThe materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm
LBird wrote:Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, wrote:IIIThe materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm
Standing superior to society does not mean that they get to dictate, but that they standard apart as if they were not effected by the happenings of society, and 'above the fray'."The standpoint of the old materialism is civil society; the standpoint of the new is human society, or social humanity." I wonder what he meant by the 'new materialism'?
Apologies for the maths, that is my own stupidity and I have edited the post. Five in three hundred is of course closer to two per cent not 0.01 percent. Apologies.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, wrote:IIIThe materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm
Standing superior to society does not mean that they get to dictate, but that they standard apart as if they were not effected by the happenings of society, and 'above the fray'.
A novel political interpretation of 'superior to society', YMS. Perhaps Charlie had better things to do, that day, than go on about politics and power, yet again.Matter speaking to you, again, perchance? Indeed, for you.
jondwhite wrote:Apologies for the maths, that is my own stupidity and I have edited the post. Five in three hundred is of course closer to two per cent not 0.01 percent. Apologies.No problem, JDW!You had me racking my brains for a moment, wondering why I couldn't figure it out!The first challenge on this thread for me, even if because of an error, so go to the top of the class!Let's hope 'talking shite' doesn't catch on with the rest of the party, eh?Oh…
LBird wrote:jondwhite wrote:Apologies for the maths, that is my own stupidity and I have edited the post. Five in three hundred is of course closer to two per cent not 0.01 percent. Apologies.No problem, JDW!You had me racking my brains for a moment, wondering why I couldn't figure it out!The first challenge on this thread for me, even if because of an error, so go to the top of the class!Let's hope 'talking shite' doesn't catch on with the rest of the party, eh?Oh…
I could troll you and say maths is the only truth in society? I just read a comic book called Logicomix about Bertrand Russell's quest for truth in mathematics. Unfortunately that is about my level of contribution to this debate.
LBird wrote:A novel political interpretation of 'superior to society', YMS. Perhaps Charlie had better things to do, that day, than go on about politics and power, yet again.Matter speaking to you, again, perchance? Indeed, for you.A mere dabbling in English suffices, especially given the mwaning of the preceding sentence, superior does imply connotations of above and outtside, but a superior whiskey does not imply that it can order otehr whiskies about. Indeed, the antonym is inferior, which usually means worse rather than a synonym of subordinate.And, yes, the words are made of matter, as is my brain, so this was all achieved with matter.
Anyway, away till tomorrow now, so, LBird is unable to answer these questions, and that is how his contributions should be judged: 1) How can we know the results of the vote, without a vote to tell us the results of the vote?2) Is the material substrate differentiated? Does it bring any qualities to the relationship with human labour in producing organic matter?3) Can consensus gentium be subject to coercion? Could a mobilised dictatorship enforce a vote, and thereby determine truth as a minority with the acquiesence of the majority?
jondwhite wrote:I could troll you and say maths is the only truth in society? I just read a comic book called Logicomix about Bertrand Russell's quest for truth in mathematics. Unfortunately that is about my level of contribution to this debate.You could read Godel and 'incompleteness theorem' on maths, JDW. He destroyed Russell.The upshot is, there is no 'Truth' in maths, and Gallileo was talking through his arse, when he claimed that 'maths was the language of nature'.Funnily enough, maths turns out to be a socio-historical invention by humans, and those boards full of symbols, beloved of physicists, are written by humans! Matter never even picked up a stick of chalk!Marx was right, once again.
Reminder: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).
Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
Quote:when I'm warning workers about the SPGB's secret intent to deny workers' democratic control of production.I referred to the fact that historians could verify and document how the elite dominated the SPD and the Bolsheviks. They could refer to Party rules, Party resolutions, and describe the relationships these parties had with workers organisations such as trade unions and workers councils and, later, historians could detail the actions both took in their respective civil wars to impose their will by the force of the State. Can you demonstrate any conference decision or party rule that gives an elite control over the SPGB?Can you show any actual policy or action of the SPGB which undermines the independence of the workers in their organisations?The SPGB unlike either the SLP, IWW, anarcho-syndicalists or the Communist Party made no attempt theoretically or in practice to steer workers choice of democracy within the union movement. (The SPGB also declines to get involved in workers movements for reforms as a party and only on an individual basis.) Where in these policies is the intent to deny workers democratic control? On the contrary, it is emphasising the independence of workers to determine their own democracy, the SPGB adopting, at the time, an unpopular position of hands off and keeping ones distance and not interfering. I think this secret conspiracy of the SPGB to thwart workers' democratic control of production cannot be shown to exist from the historic record to its behaviour now. And i keep asking for you to offer actual examples as evidence and you fail to do so. Perhaps it is too much to ask of a non-member who is unaware of the Party's past. But as i said, members and ex-members who have offered critiques, do not cite the anti-democratic nature of the SPGB as one of its failures but repeatedly describe this feature of committment to democracy as a strength …sometimes to its own disadvantage in relation to influence and membership numbers. The whole point of the Party's recruitment is not to create a cadre system but have every member with the same standing. But yes…we are not…and neither are you…the average workers …you and we do possess class consciousness and aspire to overthrowing capitalism…we wait for our fellow workers to catch up in their own way…Not once has anyone ever said the importance of ideas people hold is not the prime one. Ideas are very much part of the material conditions that will help build socialism…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.