The Return of Engels

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

At MIA, we come under 'Western Marxism' https://www.marxists.org/archive/

That's wrong. We would have been better classified under "British Social Democracy". At least Fitzgerald would have been as he's the same generation as some of them there.I wonder if this can be changed. We've not got much in common with those classified as "Western Marxists". Most of them seem to be ex-CPers. It is true that Frankfurt School did have some interesting things to say, though not the same as us and vice versa.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Lbird,I'm afraid you have never demonstrated why the existence of an objective reality leads to minority domination of society, which is significant if you call for us to assess Engels in the light of this claim.

I have done so, time and time again.But you won't read what I write.Marx claims we create our 'objective reality'.If we do so, we can change our objective reality.'Materialists' claim 'objective reality' already exists prior to our social production of it.If this is correct, we can't change this external 'objective reality'.If one agrees with Marx (and I do), then someone creates our objective reality.But, if it's not the majority (which means that the act of creation would be subject to a democratic vote), then it must be a minority which is the 'someone who creates', and thus this gives power to that minority.You don't have to agree with Marx and I, YMS, but if you don't, you should openly state just what ideology you do follow on these issues.The claim for 'objective reality' as 'external nature', as 'out there', as 'outside of human production', is a bourgeois ideological claim, which underpins elite rule.Marx challenged this ideological belief, but Engels never understood this, because he didn't understand the philosophical and epistemological issues which were involved.There, YMS, yet again, I've explained, in detail.But you'll ignore what I write, as usual.

[Young Master Smeet]

Ah, you're inserting a different premise.  So, If reality is created by humans, and that reality is not created by the majority, it must be created by the minority.  That is logically sound.However, if objective realiy exists irrespective of humanity, then it does not follow that any group must assume control of that reality, and there is no reason why the majority cannot apprehend the universe.  So, an objective universe does not necessarily underpin elite rule.  Existence of reality does not exclude the possibility of changing it.

[Young Master Smeet]

An interesting point is that Engels bankrolled Marx, that is, the material conditions of production for Marx' thought involved pleasing his patron Engels (and his interests).  Clearly Marx was [producing bourgeois science…

[Anonymous]

Haven't we discussed extensively this topic already, or are we just a bunch of Masochists ?  This is the favorite arguments of the Communist Left which has not been able to prove anything yet. They are just anti-Engelsian, but they are not anti-capitalists. The whole trend who came from France and Germany has been totally discredited, and they have not done anything positive  for the working class movement

[jondwhite]

mcolome1 wrote:

Haven't we discussed extensively this topic already, or are we just a bunch of Masochists ?  This is the favorite arguments of the Communist Left which has not been able to prove anything yet. They are just anti-Engelsian, but they are not anti-capitalists. The whole trend who came from France and Germany has been totally discredited, and they have not done anything positive  for the working class movement

Isn't McLellan, Farr and Levine all British and Carver American?

[Anonymous]

jondwhite wrote:

   Isn't McLellan, Farr and Levine all British and Carver American?

 Marx and Engels were German s and their thoughts were also supported by others countries,I am not talking about individual, I am talking about the whole movement.  The Left Communists,( or Communist left ) Western Marxism,  and the School of Frankfurt  started in Europe, and it spread to different countries,  and many of them originally  were part of the Communist Party of France, and the Communist Party of Italy.To include the Socialist Party and the WSM as part of Western Marxism is a big mistake, that is only a reformist trend, trying to blame their own mistakes on somebody else, and  to blame the emerge of Leninism and Stalinism on Engels, the same things that have been done by the reactionaries and anti=communists of blaming the problems of Russia on Marx and Engels

[Anonymous]

jondwhite wrote:

I think the point is the Anti-Engels brigade includes David McLellan, Terrell Carver and 'the Western academic left, and which was closely connected to the rise of “Western Marxism”' dating back at least as far as 1974. Western Marxism being a category the SPGB are sometimes lumped into.

The SPGB was founded in 1903, and before the emerge of all those  frustrated theoritician came out, the WSM has already moved away from Leninism, Leftism and Stalinism

[Anonymous]

The division of Western and Eastern was created by the European capitalist class, and it was created with the main purpose of underestimating  others parts of the world. During the cold war Europe was also divided in two geographic parts done with the same purpose

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 But then, like robbo, you're not a democrat, but an individualist (and thus, an elitist), and so you can continue to spout mysterious phrases, which are meaningless, and so keep the workers in their place.

 Don't tempt me into a response LBird or you will once again get slaughtered for the silly tosh you constantly peddle.  Once more for your benefit – I support the concept  of  democratic control of the means of production; I do not support the patently ridiculous idea of the world's population democratically  voting to determine whether some arcane scientific theory is true or not. Have you got that or do I still need to explain to you the difference between these two things…

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

 But then, like robbo, you're not a democrat, but an individualist (and thus, an elitist), and so you can continue to spout mysterious phrases, which are meaningless, and so keep the workers in their place.

 Don't tempt me into a response LBird or you will once again get slaughtered for the silly tosh you constantly peddle.  Once more for your benefit – I support the concept  of  democratic control of the means of production; I do not support the patently ridiculous idea of the world's population democratically  voting to determine whether some arcane scientific theory is true or not. Have you got that or do I still need to explain to you the difference between these two things…

You really need to read what I write, robbo, and move on from your imaginary struggle with an issue of your own making.As for reality, you clearly keep stating that you will not have the producers determining the truth or falsity of what they produce by democratic means.Thus, you are an elitist. Just like the bourgeoisie, whose ideology you espouse.Now, leave the thread to those who wish to discuss jdw's link.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 You really need to read what I write, robbo, and move on from your imaginary struggle with an issue of your own making.As for reality, you clearly keep stating that you will not have the producers determining the truth or falsity of what they produce by democratic means.Thus, you are an elitist. Just like the bourgeoisie, whose ideology you espouse.Now, leave the thread to those who wish to discuss jdw's link.

 I have read what you've written, LBird, as have we all. I wonder, however, if you have read what you've written. Its laughable really. Here you are accusing me of engaging in an "imaginary struggle" with an issue of my own making when in the very next sentence you reiterate the very thing that i had been taking issue with all along – your crackpot idea about the need for a global vote on the " truth" of tens of thousands of scientific theories,   And no , rejecting such a stupid idea does not make me an elitist  or – heaven forfend! – a "bourgeois ideologist".  LOL I stand by what I said. I am a democrat who fully endorses the idea that the  means of production should be owned in common and democratically  controlled by the people in a socialist society.  If you cannot figure out the difference between this and what you are advocating then there is no hope for you.  I've given up trying to explain the difference to you and you are clearly not interested in learning anything from anyone else,  You prefer to monotonously go on and on and on and on and on with this single boring meme of yours like a dog with a bone and its enough to make any sane person want to slash their wrists after reading a few LBird postings. Incidentally its amusing that you should call yourself a democrat  and then in true authoritarian/ vanguardist  style  , instruct me to forthwith leave this thread.  Is your Leninist past coming back to haunt you, LBird?

[Anonymous]

jondwhite wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

Haven't we discussed extensively this topic already, or are we just a bunch of Masochists ?  This is the favorite arguments of the Communist Left which has not been able to prove anything yet. They are just anti-Engelsian, but they are not anti-capitalists. The whole trend who came from France and Germany has been totally discredited, and they have not done anything positive  for the working class movement

Isn't McLellan, Farr and Levine all British and Carver American?

They can be from Mars or Jupiter and their analysis would be the same, and they can call themselves Western Marxists,  Eastern Marxists, Marxism-Humanism, Materialism-Idealism, Humanism, Essentialism, Lacan Left, and   they are all the same. The important thing is the core of their analysis. Who ever departs from the experience of the Soviet Union will always end in wrong conclusion, whatever happened  in the Soviet Union has nothing to do with Marx, or Engels or socialsim. Right wing or Letwing they are two wings of the same bird http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2004/no-1193-january-2004/more-lenin-or-less-lenin

[jondwhite]

So are analyses critical of Engels by McLellan, Farr, Levine and Carver 'all the same' and at their core defenses of the Soviet Union? Would you recommend reading them? What about the academics from various tendencies defending Engels?

[Anonymous]

jondwhite wrote:

So are analyses critical of Engels by McLellan, Farr, Levine and Carver 'all the same' and at their core defenses of the Soviet Union? Would you recommend reading them? What about the academics from various tendencies defending Engels?

The question is not who will defend, or who will not defend Engels. Personally I do not worship Marx or Engels, and I am not looking  for perfection in anyone  of them,  and I do not recommend that to anybody else, whoever is looking for perfection in another human being, should become member of a church, and that is what many so called Marxists have done, or are trying to doThe important idea is to understand what socialism really is, and what we should do  to establish a new society, and there is not need to read so many variety of thinkers, one is more than enough to understand the others one, they always follow the same path, it is like a  wall built from bricks, each brick is on top of another brick, but there are walls who  do not have strong foundations, and that is what they areMarx and Engels already did their job in their time,  and we must  do our job too in our time, and you are doing your job  by looking the proper answers to your questions, I already went thru that stage, i already did my homework,  and I found the answers to my questions from this university of socialism known as the Socialist Party,  we do not need a Marx or an Engels, what we need is their class consciousness and their knowledge about the history of mankind, we do not have to be followers of anybody, we must be independent critical thinkersMy first encounter in my life was Engels,  and his classical work on Scientific Socialism, and I was very young, and that book was handled to me by a person who was not an intellectual, or a famous thinker, he  was a simple  poor shoe shiner which knew more than me about Marx and Engels,  and I do not regret that encounter because It was much better of what I had before in my brain, and it opened the windows and doors of my mind. It was a new world of ideas. Right or wrong I came to socialism thru Engels writings, and then I discovered that he was mistaken in many of his ideas, but I also discovered that he was much better than the others who want to throw mud on him.I learned from an old friend of mine that in order to understand a thinker it is also recommended to study his/her biography, and that is what I did in regard to Engels and Marx, and I discovered that they were two persons, with two different background, and two different human beings with two different intelectuals abilities,  but  with the same purpose on their mind, which was to dedicate their life to the cause of the working class, and Engels is one of the few capitalists who have betrayed his own class, and he never considered himself as a person above his great friend Marx, and he defended him in all aspects, and he was the one who finished his work on Capital.Those thinkers that think that they are above Engels, they can not even tie his shoelaces, and they are always obsessed about him, and they have never done anything for the cause of the working class, with them socialism has not advanced one inch , but Engels right or wrong he left a legacy, and it was the legacy of his friend  Karl Marx.  

[Author]

Posts