LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Matthew Culbert wrote: “As someone who thinks that humans create the objective world not wonder you object to the word!”
That’s Marx’s view, Matt.
As for the rest of your post, you’re just showing your ignorance of the ideological meaning of ‘objective’.
Here’s the bourgeois definition:
“Objective is defined as someone or something that is real or not imagined.
A thing or group of things existing independent of the mind.
Being, or regarded as being, independent of the mind; real; actual.
Of or having to do with a known or perceived object as distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the subject, or person thinking.
Anything external to or independent of the mind; something objective; reality.”
I’ll bet that you’ve even thought where ‘your definition’ comes from, have you, Matt?
Believe me, mate, this philosophical conversation is passing over your head.
alanjjohnstone wrote “Geniuses like Da Vinci and Michaelangelo and Dickens and Shakespeare need fear nothing from being levelled down to mediocrity by us ignoramuses of the art and literature.”
The whole point of democratic socialism, surely, alan, is to ‘level UP‘ the associated producers, so that we socially produce more geniuses of art and literature?
Perhaps materialists really do have a low opinion of workers? Hence, the absolute hatred of any mention of democracy, where ‘geniuses’ are supposedly concerned.
Unlike you, alan, I think ‘genius’ is a socially-produced category, and I think that the ‘geniuses’ to fill that category are socially-produced, too. I’d imagine we’d expand the category to include anyone who excels at their social production, whether artist, scientist, teacher, nurse, carpenter, etc., etc.
Of course, a ‘genius’ would be elected by their peers, and also removed from that honour, if the ‘genius’ proved to be a ‘prick’. I can name a few.
Anyway, I’m sure that all the materialists here will be gossiping about ‘The Idealist LBird wants mediocrity forced upon Shakespeare, and genius allocated to all the ignoramuses‘. Really, it’s pitiful, the standard of political and philosophical responses on this site.
After eight years, alan, I think we’re getting very close to The Heart Of Darkness of your materialist version of ‘democratic socialism’: it’s a society for the elite geniuses of Science and Art, who tower inescapably above ‘us ignoramuses’.
All I can say is, ‘Speak for yourself, alan!’
Self-emancipation of the proletariat!
Matthew Culbert wrote “…objective…”.
But humans socially produce their ‘objects’, Matt.
Haven’t you read Marx?
Or are you, like robbo and now alan, now going to ditch Marx?
alanjjohnstone wrote: “What i will do, however, is use my own learned experience to try and create the environment for that elite to operate freely within, without the constraints of capitalism being imposed upon them. That is what i consider to be my function as a class-conscious socialist.
That does not put me at the mercy of any intellectual elite but both of us operating with reciprocity. I want to free the scientist so that they can begin to free me.” [my bold]
I must congratulate you on your political and philosophical openness here, alan. At least we’re getting somewhere, “after eight years of my OCD” (LOL – nothing to do with your taking eight years to give a straight answer!).
But… anyway, we’re here now!
So, democratic socialism for you, is… an elite that operates freely!
But… even funnier, though they’ll operate freely, you won’t be at their mercy!
Whatever happened to Marx, democracy, and the self-emanicipation of the proletariat? Oh, sorry, you don’t do ‘philosophy’ – so it must be nonsense, eh? Yeah, let’s leave it to an elite to openly tell us what to think and do. And, by christ, you, as an individual, will do as they say. It’s called ‘politics’, mate, and it relates to ‘power’.
Why would they ‘free you’? Your naivete is, frankly, unbelievable. Why not just put your faith in priests, alan, and have done with it?
Anyway, it’s taken you eight years to be honest, so let’s hope your political confession spreads to the other ‘materialists’ here.
Happy Easter!
alanjjohnstone wrote: “I note, LBird, that my Pannekoek reference goes without comment that your seeming fixation with quoting Marx’s philosophical understanding is unnecessary for workers to make the socialist revolution, which was an earlier observation of mine that despite his contributions, the workers doesn’t require Marx or the turgid interpretations of his acolytes such as yourself to know what is in their interest and how to make a revolution by the intellectual intervention of any elite.”
My apologies, alan, but moving this conversation onto what parts of Marx, Engels, Dietzgen, Pannekoek, etc., that we think are wrong/improvable/correct is pointless until we get to some point where we understand each others’ ideological perspective, as a basis of our differing assessments of wrong/improvable/correct. This is proving difficult because the materialists can’t recognise their own ideology, so they will have immense difficulties understanding any other, and comparing them.
Suffice to say, I have differences with Marx, Engels, Dietzgen, Pannekoek, etc., as I’ve said before, so your dig about ‘seeming fixation’ just shows that you are still not reading what I write, but are siding with the ideology of ‘materialism’, but also pretending that you are too thick to question it. Your words, not mine, comrade.
But, on this particular point of yours, yes, I do think that “philosophical understanding is necessary for workers to make the socialist revolution”. This can be done quite easily, by making philosophy understandable.
Your view (and it seems Pannekoek’s) would leave the ‘theory’ part of ‘theory and practice’ in the hands of a ‘philosophical elite’, and so that elite would drive ‘theory and practice’, not the associated producers by democratic means.
You might be happy with your ignorance of philosophy, alan, but I think that you’re going to have to address the issue eventually. I’ve offered to help, but it’s your ‘materialist’ ideology which prevents you accepting both the need to learn and my help.
So, yes, mass understanding and criticism of Marx is required for a socialist revolution.
ALB quote “Robbo, now he is saying that we don’t think that “men make history” but that tools and machines do !”
Well, ALB, if ‘men make history’, you have to admit that they are conscious and make.
So, the active side is humans, not ‘ideas’, not ‘matter’, not ‘the ideal’, not ‘the material’.
I’m so glad that you’ve finally accepted Marx’s ideas.
So, ‘who‘ consciously makes ‘science’, ALB, and ‘how‘?
Or are you going to revert to ‘matter makes science’ or ‘scientists make science’, and argue against democracy within science?
Why do you disagree with Marx’s democratic politics, ALB? Why do you want ‘the material’ to dictate to humanity? How do you know this ‘material’ if the rest of us don’t? If we all know it, why can’t we vote on it?
You haven’t a clue about Marx’s views, have you, ALB? Your 1975 article on Dietzgen shows that then, and you haven’t developed in nearly half a century, so I won’t hold my breath that Marx’s social productionism will finally have any effect on you.
Democratic Socialism, not ‘matter’, not an elite’.
robbo203 wrote: “Yes, and you reject completely the influence of the material side of this configuration. For you, material factors don’t exist. That makes your standpoint an idealist one...”
I predicted that you’d make this false allegation earlier!
You’re never one to disappoint those who know your materialist ideology, and its ideological belief that there are only two basic philosophies.
It’s been well proved by quotes on this thread from Marx, Dietzgen and Pannekoek, that human conscious activity, social production, requires a unity of theory and practice.
robbo203 wrote: “…You make no allowance for the influence of material factors. They don’t even exist from your standpoint…”
That’s because, according to Marx’s standpoint, there are only ‘ideal-material factors’.
Human activity unifies the ‘ideal and ‘material’, so that it is illegitimate to separate the unity back into isolated factors.
You might disagree with Marx, robbo, and that’s fine as a political and philosophical stance to adopt, if you decide you want to do so.
But… it’s not Marx’s, nor Dietzgen’s, nor Pannekoek’s, nor mine.
You need to query the origins of your ideas, because they haven’t originated in Marx’s views.
ALB, your quote from Pannekoek still supports Marx’s social productionism, social theory and practice, conscious activity, as the source of the change in society.
It doesn’t support the materialist theory that ‘material’ (tools, matter, stuff) produces consciousness.
ALB’s quote from Pannekoek wrote: “…the tools with which people work…tools, of these technical aids which men direct…the people are ever trying to improve these tools…Thus the Marxian theory disclosed the propelling force and the mechanism of social development.” [my bold]
The ‘propelling force’ is not ‘matter’, but social production, which requires both consciousness and being.
Being doesn’t come before consciousness (materialism); nor does consciousness come before being (idealism).
Conscious activity, social production, active humanity changes ‘matter’ and ‘consciousness’.
So, Pannekoek agrees with Marx, as do I.
You don’t.
I should mention that it’s very interesting that given a choice between ‘materialism’ and democracy, materialists choose materialism; given a choice between ‘materialist science’ and democracy, choose materialist science; given a choice between ‘materialism’ and Marx, it seems, will choose ‘materialism’, if I read alanjjohnstone correctly.
Why the commitment to ‘matter’? It’s like a religious devotion, and any questioning of it is condemned as ‘evil’ idealism.
What’s worse, is that it’s very clear that many materialists have never even read any philosophy of science, never mind philosophy, and yet feel the need to defend the honour of ‘matter’, even though they haven’t a clue what the discussion is really about, which is why, like Lenin, they soon turn from discussion to abuse.
Well, whilst ‘matter’ wins, democratic socialism won’t.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “This thread is evidence for all those modern-day neo-Bakuninists who wished that a certain Karl Marx had never existed, as comments regurgitate his words as if they are religious canon.
Socialism for me is not the preserve of any one thinker or activist, no matter how erudite he (or she) might be.
They only make contributions and none are existential to the socialist idea….
And before someone says it, yes i am prepared to throw the baby out with the bath-water.”
That’s an entirely proper political and philosophical position to take, alan.
But, if one is to reject Marx in parts, or in his entirety, since Marx has been so influential in notions of democratic socialism, one must specify which parts and why.
It’s clear to me that most materialists are, in effect, ‘realists’ in modern philosophy of science terms.
But ‘realism’ was dealt a heavy blow by Einstein’s ‘relativity’, and has never been able to recover, and so, under the influence of post-war US physics, has simply stopped the philosophical discussions between physicists, that were fundamental to ‘physics’ prior to the war.
The ironic thing, for us, is that Marx preceded bourgeois science by 70 years, and his works provided a basis for a 20st century physics, where humanity is central to the philosophy of physics. But, that Marx is not the Marx of the materialists. Materialism is a bourgeois ideology past its time.
Democratic socialism will require a democratic science, and Marx can give us some pointers how this can be so.
As for me, I fear that some potential democratic socialists will be “prepared to throw the baby out with the bath-water”. I think that would be a mistake in the 21st century.
robbo203 wrote: “I wish you would stop misrepresenting what you call the SPGB’s “materialism”. You know very well by now it is emphatically not the 18th-century mechanical materialism espoused by the likes of Lenin and co”
But that’s the entire political and philosophical point, robbo.
There is a contradiction between the SPGB’s alleged ‘democracy’ and ‘materialism’. One has to give way to the other.
I’ve asked the materialists within the SPGB (and they don’t have to adhere to materialism, but at present they do) do they accept Marx’s views about democratic social production, or not. Marx was clearly writing about all social production, physical and academic, ideal and material, social and individual. So, a Marxist would expect the answer that all social production within a socialist society would be democratic. Seems simple.
But you and the other materialists insist that there are areas of social production that are not amenable to democratic production, like ‘science’. Marx famously warned that materialists would do this, that they would claim that within human society there exists an elite of specialists who would determine ‘the material’ for the majority. And this would divide society into two.
This is precisely the answer that you, as a materialist, give. You deny that democracy is required in certain areas of social production. Lenin did this, too. Thus, the SPGB seems to espouse the same politics as Lenin – that of a ‘special consciousness’ within a cadre, separate from the majority of the associated producers.
And just as Lenin did, materialists (holding to the ideological belief that there is only two basic philosophies) claim that anyone who argues against this ‘materialism’ that Marx condemned, is an ‘idealist’. It’s not a term of analysis, but simply abuse.
Marx reconciled both idealism and materialism, into a third philosophy – social productionism (in effect, part-idealism-part-materialism).
robbo203 wrote: “The SPGB/s materialism IS Marx’s materialism.”
I’ve shown time and time again that this is an untrue claim. Marx was a democrat, Lenin wasn’t. The SPGB currently espouses the same ideology as Lenin did. But… the SPGB can change itself – unlike the SWP.
ALB’s link to Marx: “The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life. Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men, appear at this stage as the direct efflux of their material behaviour. The same applies to mental production as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc., of a people. Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc. ” [my bold]
As ALB has already agreed, by ‘material’, Marx meant ‘social’ (ie. both consciousness and being). So, the above passage could just as well say:
“The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the social activity and the social intercourse of men, the language of real life. Conceiving, thinking, the mental intercourse of men, appear at this stage as the direct efflux of their social behaviour. The same applies to mental production as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc., of a people. Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc. ”
It’s nothing to do with ‘matter’ producing ‘ideas’.
Marx’s fundamental concept is ‘production’. Human production. Social production. “Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, etc”
Nice one, alan!
The sooner that the SPGB says ‘Goodbye-ee’ to materialism, the better!
Have you kept up with this thread, and decided to side with Marx?
Or are you still refusing to say ‘Goodbye-ee’ to the ridiculous notion that your ‘consciousness’ is determined by inanimate matter?
If so, you’ll have to explain how ‘stuff’ made you a socialist, in the absence of you thinking about it. You’d have to be a clockwork machine, and to be telling other workers that the ‘clockwork mechanism’ made you a socialist, and it will do the same for them!
I can see them stifling their laughter already! Then they’ll get on with their lives, entirely ignorant of any ideas about democratic socialism, because you insist that ‘the material conditions’ will make them socialists.
It’s not Marx’s view, alan.
ALB wrote: “The Young Hegelians, of which Marx was one for a while, threw out God and gave “human consciousness” the status of being the creator of the world.
If you take this position then you argue that the way to change the world is to change consciousness. Marx disagreed and broke with the Young Hegelians to argue that the way to change the world was to change the…”
So far, so good, ALB.
But, “… material conditions of life that gave rise to content of the consciousness.”
As you agreed earlier, by ‘material’, Marx meant ‘social’ (as in ‘social being’, ‘social consciousness’), so this latter claim can’t be correct.
For Marx, ‘material’, as you’ve agreed, encompassed ‘ideas’ and ‘things’, and so it is wrong to claim that these ‘give rise to the content of consciousness’, because the ‘material/social conditions’ already contain ‘content of consciousness’.
You’re still trying to claim that ‘consciousness’ is produced by ‘material’. Not for Marx it wasn’t. For Marx, human social theory and practice produces changes in ‘material’, ‘social’, ‘being’ and ‘consciousness’.
Self-change, self-emancipation. The ‘self’ Marx refers to is ‘humanity’.
We produce and change our ‘material’ and our ‘consciousness’.
The only way out of this, is to claim that matter/being/stuff/things changes consciousness.
But, as Marx pointed out, because this is untrue (and it’s really human conscious activity which produces all changes), those who make your claim are going to be the ones who provide their ‘consciousness’, and pretend that ‘matter’ itself makes the change in consciousness for everyone else.
Thus, those who claim that “material conditions of life that gave rise to content of the consciousness” have to divide society into two parts – them, a minority (who hide the fact that its their ‘consciousness’ that’s producing the practice in ‘theory and practice’), and the majority, who are kidded into waiting for ‘material’, rather than the majority themselves, to ‘give rise to content of the consciousness’.
Who educates the educator?
