The gravity of the situation

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Hmmm…seems as if LBird has been placed into check…Could it well be check-mate…Game, set and match…Here at the Crucible, there are hushed voices as LBird, surveys the table for a shot that gets him out of the snooker and into safety while the opposition prowl around ready to pounce upon their prey…Can it be all over, or will LBird score in the last seconds of injury time?Oh, this is getting exciting…who said i was a boring old debate…it has everything…high tension…emotion…i'm on tenterhooks for the next post …No idea what it is all about but who cares…it is drama in the making…that i can tell. 

It's relatively easy to understand, alan.First comes the politics of production, which produces philosophy, which produces physics.In production, we have the 'theory and practice' of the bourgeoisie, who employ their concept of 'private property'. By its nature, this concept precludes any 'democratic interference' in itself. 'Private property' just 'is', and it is alleged by those with power to be eternal, and not subject to socio-historical analysis of its emergence, and thus not changable.This concept of 'private property' is thus then similarly reproduced within philosophy, where it is called 'matter'. By its nature, this concept precludes any 'democratic interference' in itself. 'Matter' just 'is', and it is alleged by those with power to be eternal, and not subject to socio-historical analysis of its emergence, and thus not changable.This concept of 'matter' is thus then similarly reproduced within physics, where it is employed in social practice, by those 'practical men' who have not the slightest interest or ability in philosophical issues, and so we have the sight of Einstein and Bohr (the quote was helpfully provided by DJP, earlier) playing with their 'mud pies and rocks', and unable to provide a way forward for a democratic physics (of course, based upon a democratic philosophy and democratic production).That task, which cannot be completed by bourgeois physicists, philosophers, or property owners, is awaiting the class conscious proletariat, when it revolutionises its world.As Charlie said, 'All that is solid melts into air' – including 'matter'.But this sort of revolutionary thinking plays no part in the worldview of the Engelsist-Kautsky-Lenin 'socialists'. They claim to 'know matter' as it is.Dickheads, the lot of them.I know that you're confused, alan, but, for christsake, don't listen to them.

L Bird takes his shot and misses, he's back in a snooker and it looks like he's being asked to play again.

[Young Master Smeet]

Anyway, back to the German ideology by Marx and Engels to clarify matters:

Quote:

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an “eternal law.”

"Ruling" ideas, not only ideas, other ideas exist and contest with the dominant (or to be poncey, hegemonic) ideas.

Quote:

The existence of revolutionary ideas in a particular period presupposes the existence of a revolutionary class

and

Quote:

For each new class which puts itself in the place of one ruling before it, is compelled, merely in order to carry through its aim, to represent its interest as the common interest of all the members of society, that is, expressed in ideal form: it has to give its ideas the form of universality, and represent them as the only rational, universally valid ones.

  Finally:

Quote:

This whole semblance, that the rule of a certain class is only the rule of certain ideas, comes to a natural end, of course, as soon as class rule in general ceases to be the form in which society is organised, that is to say, as soon as it is no longer necessary to represent a particular interest as general or the “general interest” as ruling.

The end of class rule is the end of ideology.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm#b3

[Young Master Smeet]

Erm, Lbird, "All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind."  It's a metaphor, and as the continued quote demonstrates, is coupled with a notion of realism.  The paragraph as a whole demonstrates:

Quote:

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

The "solid" is the "train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions".Now, as to yourself:

Quote:

This concept of 'private property' is thus then similarly reproduced within philosophy, where it is called 'matter'. By its nature, this concept precludes any 'democratic interference' in itself. 'Matter' just 'is', and it is alleged by those with power to be eternal, and not subject to socio-historical analysis of its emergence, and thus not changable.

That simply isn't rue, the theory of materialism incorporates the mutability of matter, Zeno of Elea isn't the only materialist philosopher in history.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Anyway, back to the German ideology by Marx and Engels to clarify matters:

Quote:

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an “eternal law.”

Can you tell me the difference, YMS, between this quote by Marx, and my post above?Except, of course, that mine is a damn sight clearer.

LBird wrote:

First comes the politics of production, which produces philosophy, which produces physics.In production, we have the 'theory and practice' of the bourgeoisie, who employ their concept of 'private property'. By its nature, this concept precludes any 'democratic interference' in itself. 'Private property' just 'is', and it is alleged by those with power to be eternal, and not subject to socio-historical analysis of its emergence, and thus not changable.This concept of 'private property' is thus then similarly reproduced within philosophy, where it is called 'matter'. By its nature, this concept precludes any 'democratic interference' in itself. 'Matter' just 'is', and it is alleged by those with power to be eternal, and not subject to socio-historical analysis of its emergence, and thus not changable.This concept of 'matter' is thus then similarly reproduced within physics, where it is employed in social practice, by those 'practical men' who have not the slightest interest or ability in philosophical issues, and so we have the sight of Einstein and Bohr (the quote was helpfully provided by DJP, earlier) playing with their 'mud pies and rocks', and unable to provide a way forward for a democratic physics (of course, based upon a democratic philosophy and democratic production).

[Young Master Smeet]

I find Marx & Engels prose to be so much clearer, but the emphasis is on the material production of ideas, and the possession of the means of mental production is the key difference.  So, the class that has the time to think, the means to communicate, acess to that communication, will dominate the battle of ideas.  It follows that a change in material circumstances will change the ideas.I was going to try and get us back on track by discussing this:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pirate-website-offering-millions-of-academic-papers-for-free-refuses-to-close-despite-law-suit-a6875001.htmlThe practitioners of academe and science these days are not personally 'gentlemen of independent means' and most have nothing but a public salary, although there are contned attempts by governments to comemrcialise academia (by, say, making academics seek grants and research funding, i.e. make them behave as entrepreneur as well as thinkers) many resist, and the practice of science itself means a focus on the use value over exchange values.  Science is largely performed by proletarians, by waged and salaried workers, and information is owned in common.The practices of the publishing firms to restrict access are against the values of the daily practice of the scientists, hence the ideological battle between academia and the science publishers over the means of communication.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I find Marx & Engels prose to be so much clearer, but the emphasis is on the material production of ideas, and the possession of the means of mental production is the key difference.

[my bold]So, you don't understand Marx, then, YMS.When Marx uses the term 'material', he is referring to 'social production', by active humans, not to 'matter'.It was Engels' complete misunderstanding of Marx that infected the socialist movement, and so your ideas, too.Engels thought that when Marx used the term 'material', Marx was referring to 'material' (meaning 'matter').But Marx, in the intellectual context of his times, was contrasting 'material' production (ie. human production) with 'ideal' production (ie. divine production).So, if one reads Marx and replaces his term 'material' with the more accurate and clearer term 'social production', it all falls into place. Of course, this clearly fits with his notion of 'theory and practice', which requires both ideal and material. He even said this was his intent, in both his Theses on Feuerbach and in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. And even in Capital, he says that theory proceeds the activity of humans. I've given the relevant quotes many times.So, YMS, the key difference is not in Marx's and my texts, but in Marx and my understanding of them, and your understanding of them.You follow Engels, and not Marx.By 'material', in the contemporary usage, Marx means 'ideal-material'. He took divine production and placed it in our hands. Engels ditched this, and placed production back in the hands of the god 'Matter'.

[LBird]

Marx wrote:

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance.

Here's a Democratic Communist translation of Marx's piss-poor text, replacing 'material' with 'social production':"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling socially productive force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of social production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant social production relationships, the dominant social production relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance."Now, doesn't that make much more sense of the whole thrust of Marx's ideas?And make laughable Engels' complete failure to understand?Well, if it wasn't so tragic… because we're still dominated by 'matter' and its political complement, Leninism.

[Young Master Smeet]

No, what Marx meant when he used the word 'Material' was 'Tuesday', so he wa only referring to things that make Tuesday happen.

Humty wrote:

When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

I love this method of exegesis wherein Marx (through Engels' pen, whose handwriting that passage is in) meant something else entirely.I dunno, though, we have on the one hand the gnomic 'Theses on Feuerbach' and some comments from the manuscripts, but in a book length critique of Feuerbach, written in collaboration with otehr humans (social production) for publication, we should take teh former over the latter. See, it's hard to square your reading with the preface:

Chaz & Fred wrote:

Once upon a time a valiant fellow had the idea that men were drowned in water only because they were possessed with the idea of gravity. If they were to knock this notion out of their heads, say by stating it to be a superstition, a religious concept, they would be sublimely proof against any danger from water. His whole life long he fought against the illusion of gravity, of whose harmful results all statistics brought him new and manifold evidence. This valiant fellow was the type of the new revolutionary philosophers in Germany.

(Or Lbird).

[Young Master Smeet]

Quote:

socially productive force

What constitutes the socially productive force?Would they be

Quote:

the framework of definite modes of production, which, of course, are not dependent on the will, alien [fremde] practical forces, which are independent not only of isolated individuals but even of all of them together, always come to stand above people

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

 dunno, though, we have on the one hand the gnomic 'Theses on Feuerbach' and some comments from the manuscripts…

You very conveniently ignore Capital, but it doesn't surprise me, YMS.You're not reading what I write, and are determined to hang onto your Engelsist ideology, and worship 'matter' as the source of critical ideas, of 'practice and theory'.Hopefully, the penny might start to drop with others, though…

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Quote:

socially productive force

What constitutes the socially productive force?Would they be

Quote:

the framework of definite modes of production, which, of course, are not dependent on the will, alien [fremde] practical forces, which are independent not only of isolated individuals but even of all of them together, always come to stand above people

Yes, but 'modes of production' are not 'matter', but socially produced by active humans, and so can be changed.Try reading Marx.

[Young Master Smeet]

At Last the Truth wrote:

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling football team of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of social football at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant football team relationships, the dominant footballing relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance."

There we have it, we simply need to overthrow the ruling football team.  When Boro[*] top the league, the workign class will be liberated. [*]Soon to be the only North East team in the Premiership, just saying like.

[LBird]

Once again, the SPGB bottles intellectual discussion, and reverts to childishness.So predictable.

[Young Master Smeet]

Oh, I forgot capital:

The Devil Himself wrote:

My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

Once again, the SPGB bottles intellectual discussion, and reverts to childishness.So predictable.

How can one have rational discussion where one party can take the textual sources, say they don't say what they mean, and then re-writes them to mean what they want them to mean?

[Author]

Posts