Marx was a Productionist, not a Materialist

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

If you want to know what 'realism' means, why not ask comrades their opinion, and then think about it, rather than posting an uncriticised link?

Well if you want to discuss Critical Realism, (which seems to be different from Realism as generally concieved) and it looks like you want to discuss nothing else, perhaps start a new thread. This quote from Bhakshar would be a good starting point..

Bhakshar wrote:

The model of the society/person connection I am proposing could be summarized as follows: people do not create society. For it always pre-exists them and is a necessary condition for their activity. Rather, society must be regarded as an ensemble of structures, practices and conventions which individuals reproduce or transform, but which would not exist unless they did so. Society does not exist independently of human activity (the error of reification). But it is not the product of i.e. (the error of voluntarism).

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Sorry last time I checked that is not what "realism" means..

Another way of explaining your method.It's like someone asking the SPGB what 'socialism' is, and then being given a reply which contains references to 'democracy'.But then, that someone retorting that 'socialism is not democratic!', and posting a link to the East German DDR regime, to 'prove' what socialism really is, ie. Stalinism.Whilst you insist that you have access to a way of thinking that means you don't have to read what others are actually saying about themselves, then you'll never understand.Why not read Archer's book, which I referred to, rather than just dismissing 'realism'? (or, pretending that you know what 'realism' is, because some non-realists told you 'what it is').

[DJP]

There are no right or wrong definitions only inconsistent uses of them. When I say "realism" and you say "realism" it seems we are referring to different concepts. So like I said if you want to talk about what "realism" means in the context of "critical realism" I suggest starting a new thread, something useful may come out of it who knows 

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

When I say "realism" and you say "realism" it seems we are referring to different concepts.

Well, you seem to have learned something.Why not compare what Archer says about 'criteria of existence' with what stanford says about both these criteria and others that they can think of?Then you'll know both uses of the concept of 'realism'.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Why not compare what Archer says about 'criteria of existence' with what stanford says about both these criteria and others that they can think of?

Because all I have read about Critical Realism over the last 18 months or so does not make me think that doing so would be the most productive way to use my time or money right now. If you think that CR is such a good thing, and want to persuade us of it, then this would be something for you to do…

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Why not compare what Archer says about 'criteria of existence' with what stanford says about both these criteria and others that they can think of?

Because all I have read about Critical Realism over the last 18 months or so does not make me think that doing so would be the most productive way to use my time or money right now. If you think that CR is such a good thing, and want to persuade us of it, then this would be something for you to do…

But I've already done this!The fact that you've ignored all my attempts to show that Marx was (what we would call today) a Critical Realist, doesn't mean it hasn't been attempted.Since I started this thread to show that Marx wasn't a 'materialist', but something to do with 'human production', which can be called 'idealism-materialism' or 'critical realism', I've tried to help show why this works.And the concept of a 'causal criterion of existence', which stresses powers and thus production, fits well with Marx's concept of 'value'.If 'all you have read about CR over 18 months' hasn't convinced you, fair enough, but then given that I've shown how CR can help us understand rocks, cars, society, value, etc., etc., then I think that the ball's in your court to detail an alternative to CR that can do these things, too.My purpose, as I always say, is to help workers come to an understanding of Marx's works, which I don't think that Communists have done in the past.I've shown that, if someone can understand 'cars', they can understand 'value', too. Unless Marx's poorly explained ideas are re-thought and explained properly to a new generation of workers, then we won't see any advance to socialism this century, either.

[LBird]

I have to say, that the SPGB seems to have been engaged, since I've been posting here, in putting up a very poor rearguard defence of 19th century 'materialism'.And I say the 'SPGB' advisedly, because even if 'materialism' isn't the 'official' philosophy of the SPGB, I've had experience of no members (or even sympathisers) showing any knowledge whatsoever of the developments of the 20th century, and joining in my attempt to build an explanation of 'value' (for example, or of 'historical materialism') for the 21st century.It's as if time stopped in 1904, and what was then the 'Mainstream Marxism' (ie. Engelsism) has been lovingly protected from all-comers, whether those seeking to destroy Marxism and science, or to save it.I count myself as amongst the latter, because I've been alive well after 1904, and can read what's been written since then.The old 'materialism' just doesn't stand up to modern criticism, so it's a great relief when Marxists discover that Marx wasn't a 'materialist'. One only has to read his works to discover the element of 'creative human thought', which precedes ' human action'. That's why we talk about 'theory and practice'.You've only got to ask a 'materialist' what 'theory' they use, and they are baffled. They think: 'Surely the material tells us 'what it is'?' and 'Matter precedes ideas' and so they don't have to actively think, critically and creatively about 'what the material is', and that this thinking can change, and so the 'material' changes for us. The 'materialists' believe that they have access to the 'material', which remains fixed, as does 'knowledge' of it.After all, it's 'matter', isn't it? Concrete, not like those nasty 'abstractions' that the evil 'idealists' inflict upon us!

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

They think: 'Surely the material tells us 'what it is'?' and 'Matter precedes ideas' and so they don't have to actively think, critically and creatively about 'what the material is', and that this thinking can change, and so the 'material' changes for us. The 'materialists' believe that they have access to the 'material', which remains fixed, as does 'knowledge' of it.

I don't think anyone has been defending this position, apart from the strawmen created by your own imagination..

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

They think: 'Surely the material tells us 'what it is'?' and 'Matter precedes ideas' and so they don't have to actively think, critically and creatively about 'what the material is', and that this thinking can change, and so the 'material' changes for us. The 'materialists' believe that they have access to the 'material', which remains fixed, as does 'knowledge' of it.

I don't think anyone has been defending this position, apart from the strawmen created by your own imagination..

I see you missed out the line preceding, DJP!

LBird wrote:

You've only got to ask a 'materialist' what 'theory' they use, and they are baffled.

Why not tell us either your ideology, or the ideology of the stanford site you quote so often?If you're not 'defending the position that one doesn't need an ideology to understand the material', why not tell us the one you employ to understand the 'material'?'Materialists' always insist that they don't need to expose their ideology, because one doesn't need an ideology to understand the material.'Materialists' seem to think that the 'concrete' talks to them, as opposed to Marx's 'theory and practice'. Engels' mistaken view of Marx has encouraged his followers to think that 'ideas' are not required to make sense of the material. They castigate this as 'idealism'.The reason you won't answer me, DJP, is not because of my supposed 'strawmanning', but because you really believe that you don't require an ideology to understand the material.Otherwise, you'd tell me your ideology.

[DJP]

I do not have an ideology. To me, and most other people, "ideology" does not mean what you use it to mean. I have many theories however, one being that nobody really knows what "matter" is and that nobody can do.Another theory I have is that we do not experience the world as it is but instead a recreation of it created by our brains.Another theory I have is that this recreation is shaped by the fact that we are not isolated brains but brains living in a sea of other brains..Another theory I have is that a world exists outside of me, existed before me and will exist after I am gone and that this world is material / physical in nature. i.e there is no supernatural spiritual dimension.How long do you want me to go on?…FWIW There's an interesting looking article on Marxism and CR is Capital and Class number 68 which I'm about to go through..

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I do not have an ideology. …How long do you want me to go on?…

So, being a Socialist/Communist plays no part whatsoever in your understanding of the world, both physical and social? You never mentioned it, once.This is my whole point: I'm a Communist, and I use that ideology to try to understand the world. What's more, because I'm a Communist, and I know that society is divided, and thus knowledge produced by that society is divided, I also know that if someone claims either to be non-ideological or non-Communist, that they're bullshitting me, either deliberately (in the case of academics of the bourgeoisie) or through ignorance (other comrades who haven't yet become aware that 'ideas' are required to make sense of the world). And 'ideas' are always political. Even about 'nature'.To be frank, my belief that 'ignorance' is involved (rather than a thought-out bourgeois defence) has been confirmed by my experiences here.

DJP wrote:

FWIW There's an interesting looking article on Marxism and CR is Capital and Class number 68 which I'm about to go through..

I'd be extremely obliged to you, DJP, if you could supply me with a copy of this text. I haven't read it, and don't have access to Capital and Class.

[LBird]

Quick point, DJP. Be sure to clarify for yourself the philosophical ideology of John Michael Roberts, the author of the text that you've mentioned.I've just had a look at the site, and can't get access to the article. So much for 'free access' between Communists, eh?

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

So, being a Socialist/Communist plays no part whatsoever in your understanding of the world, both physical and social? You never mentioned it, once.

Of course it does. But I'd call that a theory or a bunch of theories, not an ideology.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, being a Socialist/Communist plays no part whatsoever in your understanding of the world, both physical and social? You never mentioned it, once.

Of course it does. But I'd call that a theory or a bunch of theories, not an ideology.

Right. 'Of course it does'. So, to use your terminology, what 'bunch of theories' do you use to understand the world?There must be a 'unifying' theory behind the 'bunch', otherwise the 'bunch' would be eclectic and self-contradictory, and give you differing answers when combined with your practice on the world.Why not just call this central 'theory' 'Socialism' (or 'Communism'), and explain how it helps you to understand the physical/material world?Unless it isn't, and doesn't.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

There must be a 'unifying' theory behind the 'bunch'.

Why presume that? There's no good reason to really think there is, look into all the recent work on cognitive biases…www.youarenotsosmart.com

[Author]

Posts