[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Oh no, what have I done !

I can predict what you won't do, ALB.Materialists never do. They worship 'matter', and sit passively at its feet.They can't accept Marx's view that we actively construct our object, like 'gravitational waves'.

[LBird]

1. A historically-specific human social group produced a social 'theory' ('physical reality' did not speak to humans, not even to elite bourgeois physicists), a theory which corresponded to the interests, purposes and ethics of the social group.2. A historically-specific human social group employed that theory in social practice to attempt to construct 'knowledge' ('physical reality' did not 'actively impinge on an individual's biological senses', not even an elite bourgeois physicist's senses), a 'knowledge' which corresponded to the interests, purposes and ethics of the social group.3. Since this 'social knowledge' is a 'social construction' (and not the one-off 'discovery' of a 'physical reality', which is then 'true forever'), it can be changed by a different socio-historical group, which has different interests, purposes and ethics, and so can produce a different theory, employ a different practice, and thus produce a different 'knowledge'.This is Marx's method of 'theory and practice', in which historically-specific social groups actively produce their social knowledge of an 'inorganic' nature: that is, they produce 'organic nature', 'nature-for-us'.'Inorganic nature' is not the 'active side', and humans do not passively reflect 'inorganic nature', we create our object, our 'organic nature'.'Gravitational waves' are a socio-historical construct, they are 'knowledge'. They now form part of current 'organic nature'.But given a different society, theory and practice, they may, in the future, also disappear into 'the ether'.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Isn't it a case, as far as you are concerned, of the less 'materialism' the better the theory?

As far as I'm concerned, the more of 'Marx' and the less of 'Engels', the more of 'theory and practice' and the less of 'practice and theory'……so, as I keep saying, the balance between 'materialism' and 'idealism' must be struck.Marx struck this balance in his Theses on Feuerbach, where he tooks parts of both idealism and materialism, and ditched parts of both idealism and materialism.If one is going to include the term 'materialism' in a description of Marx's epistemology, then it must be balanced with the term 'idealism'.If the sole usage 'materialism' is ditched, so too can 'idealism'.We could call it 'theory and practice', because that it how we actively construct our knowledge of the world.This is nothing to do with 'matter' determining 'consciousness', as Engels mistakenly thought.By 'material conditions', Marx meant 'socio-historical conditions produced by humanity', not 'bricks and mortar' or simply 'physical things'.It looks like neither the current SPGB or its splitter Walsby came to understand this, and both simply equated 'Marx' with 'materialism'. When Walsby realised that 'materialism' was nonsense, it caused him to ditch 'Marx', too, because he never sought the differences between Charlie and Fred.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

…I am attempting to throw open for general discussion a source document that must be confronted when assessing “Marx and the Materialist Conception of History”.Commentators, pro and con, do not dispute this document’s relevance for that purpose…

Yes, and I wholeheartedly agree with your 'attempt to throw open for general discussion', twc.But, to do this, requires a comparison of their respective ideas, not an outlining of their personal relationship as mates, or an attempt to analyse their individual psychology, or their professional roles at work.The crux of the matter is what the pair of them meant by 'material'.It's no use saying Marx used the term 'material' and Engels used the term 'material', so they were both talking about the same thing, the 'material'.It's beyond any doubt, and always has been, that both used the term 'material'.The issue, through the line Labriola-Lukacs-Pannekoek-Hook-Gramsci-Dunayevskaya-Mattick-Avineri-Carver-Wood (and many others) is about just what 'materialism', when it is used in both Marx and Engels, actually means.Put simply, by 'materialism' Marx meant 'social production' (as opposed to 'idealism' meaning 'divine production'), whereas by 'materialism' Engels meant 'matter' (as opposed to 'idealism' meaning 'ideas').The political consequences of the adoption of Engels' misunderstanding of Marx was becoming clear even to Engels, by the end of his life, as his later letters show. But, even then, he couldn't get to the real root of the problem, and he, even at the end, continued to talk about the 'finality' of 'matter'.This 'materialism' is nothing to do with 'social production' (which means workers can change their world), but leads to the political pretence that 'matter' has the power to determine what humans do.Since that is not true, and, as Marx argued, humans create and thus can change their world, the power to change is vested in an elite, a minority with some sort of 'special consciousness', who themselves (and not workers employing democratic methods) change the world for their elite purposes.As a long line of thinkers have protested, if one agrees with 'materialism' (of the Engels' variety), then one is placing power to change into the hands of a minority, and this philosophy is ideal for Leninists, who openly say that the party is the 'active side', and not the class, who must wait till after the revolution to supposedly take power, which has been organised for them by the party.You must discuss the differences between Marx and Engels, twc.You're simply setting out to prove the existence of the unified being 'Marx-Engels'.If your theory starts with the concept 'Marx-Engels', you'll 'discover' 'Marx-Engels'.But if one employs a comparative method, the purpose of which is to build a basis for workers' power, and the democratic control of the means of production, then the differences between Marx's and Engels' conflicting 'materialisms' become very clear.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

LBird wrote:

I've had a very brief look at the rtf, jdw, and his main problem seems to be a failure to distinguish between Marx and Engels.That is, as far as I can tell after a quick browse, he, like the SPGB, still regards the being Marx-Engels as a unity.If you know differently, could you point me to the relevant passages?

I have found the excerpt in question and actually it comes from an article I used as a preface in the printed book.

Quote:

The conviction that not merely dialectical materialism but materialism in general was inherently self-contradictory (in the sense, for example, that it postulates a completely objective reality independent of or essentially unrelated to the knowledge of it, which however is and can only be a mere abstract concept and thus completely subjective) brought Harold Walsby to a general systematic critique of Marxist political assumptions, especially in far as they turn on the view that men’s consciousness is basically formed by or dependent on their material conditions of existence. Insisting that consciousness, or thought, also had its own independent nature and laws of operation, and thus was in a vital sense self-determined, Walsby eventually arrived at the concept of a hierarchy of forms or modes of thinking such that each level or “layer” of thought is more highly organised, more systematic, more detached and rational, especially in its view of society and social problems, than its predecessor – and also less extensive quantitatively (i.e. held by fewer people). Thus he held that the programme of such a body as the S.P.G.B., resting as it did on the assumption that a majority of people could become imbued with a critical, rational view of the social order, was vitiated by the inherently self-limiting nature of the development of thought.

http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=420

Thanks for your efforts, jdw.From this analysis of 'materialism', which I think Marx would also share (never mind Lukacs, Korsch, Pannekoek, E. M. Wood, etc.), it seems he was spot on!His real problem, though, was that he started from the assumption of the unified being 'Marx-Engels', and thus logically assumed that if he disagreed with 'materialism', this was an ideology shared by both Engels and Marx, and so 'Marxism' was the culprit.If he'd have realise that Marx's 'materialism' (ie. social production) is nothing to do with Engels' 'materialism' (ie. 'hard stuff' like 'matter' determining 'consciousness'), then he'd have realised that the 'Marxism' he disagreed with was actually 'Engelsism'.Of course, whatever political conclusions he then drew from his repudiation of 'Marxism' has nothing to do with us Democratic Communists, who look to the active, class conscious proletariat as the creator of 'socialism', as outlined (quite obscurely, though), by Marx.

[LBird]

Although twc uses the title “Marx and the Materialist Conception of History”, it’s an Engels’ text that twc chooses to illustrate this so-called ‘Marx’, and not a text from Marx himself.Since the debate is entirely about whether Engels and Marx were using the same meaning for the term ‘materialist’, it is illegitimate to foreclose the discussion by using ‘Engels’ to determine ‘Marx’. This procedure will clearly result in the unified being of ‘Marx-Engels’, the ‘single’ origin of Leninism. twc’s method is not a comparative one, in which both Marx and Engels’ texts are compared and contrasted, but a religious method, guaranteed to produce the unified being ‘Marx-Engels’. In fact, the title for this thread should read “Engels and the Materialist Conception of History”.My advice for any comrade genuinely interested in this debate regarding Marx, Engels and the so-called ‘Materialist Conception of History’, is to read both thinkers, together with a commentary to help orientate oneself, and try to decide for oneself.I can recommend the following two texts: Karl MarxPreface and Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Political EconomyForeign Languages Press, Peking, 1976http://www.marx2mao.com/M&E/PI.htmlhttp://www.amazon.com/Preface-introduction-contribution-critique-political/dp/B000RY60NA Terrell CarverMarx & Engels: The Intellectual RelationshipIndianaUniversityPress, Bloomington, 1983http://www.amazon.co.uk/Marx-Engels-The-Intellectual-Relationship/dp/0253336813Especially pages 96-117, chapter 4, The Invention of Dialectics The Marx booklet also contains an appendix on pages 46-59, which is the review of Marx’s text by Frederick Engels, so there is no need to buy a third separate text.If any comrade reads these texts, and indeed others, too, and wishes to have a discussion about the difficulties of understanding Marx’s meaning of ‘materialist’ and of reconciling his usage with Engels’ much more simplistic view, then please start a new thread, and I’ll be happy to engage.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

I'll tell you what, Vin.Get the SPGB to admit that it won't have the democratic control by workers of maths, physics and truth, and we can end the myth of the SPGB's 'socialism' (which is precisely that workers' control), and I'll bid you all a good-day. 

That sounds like a threat to disrupt every thread. You are a very good troll And I have told you a thousand times you ignoramous. Socialism abolishes the working class.  You are a confused left winger, not a revolutionary

Why not just say the magic words, Vin?Until then, then SPGB can't be allowed to disrupt every thread with their anti-democratic, anti-worker, Religious Materialism, and to troll the movement for socialism.The SPGB will not discuss these issues, but simply dishes out abuse.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBirddo you think the whole forum should be devoted to  your accusation of 'Englism' or whatever you call it? Or are  you going to allow us to discuss other stuff without your arrogant and  ignorant interuptions and baseless slanders and accustaions?How about devoting a whole thread to your baseless slander?  

I'll tell you what, Vin.Get the SPGB to admit that it won't have the democratic control by workers of maths, physics and truth, and we can end the myth of the SPGB's 'socialism' (which is precisely that workers' control), and I'll bid you all a good-day.Whilst you pretend to be socialists, to try to attract unsuspecting workers, I'm here (until banned, anyway).If you don't understand all this debate, Vin, just ignore it, or perhaps try to learn.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Actually, YMS, if I remember correctly he is on record in one of the previous multiple threads on this as saying that if society democratically votes in favour of one particular scientific theory that will become the orthodox view that will be expressed in all textbooks, etc. as such. Any rival view will have difficulty in being expressed. A vote will also be able to ban the expression of certain views.

Since you hide your Engelsist ideology, ALB, it is not clear for other workers to understand what I'm saying, if they refract what I actually say through your ignorant understanding.I'm actually 'on record' as saying a vote will produce a temporary 'truth', which we'll know is temporary, because Marxists recognise that all 'truths' are socio-historical productions by societies, and so, being democrats, we'll have other 'truths' on standby, which will be available to replace the current 'truth', if we decide that it needs replacing.So, workers will produce by democratic means a 'vote-winner', 'truth A' and obviously minority 'truth B' (and perhaps C and D, etc.).Whilst it suits the purposes of the democratic workers' councils, then 'truth A' will remain, with options to replace that, if they so wish. Our textbooks will be full of choices of truth, not Truth.This method will, of course, be taught by our democratic education system, and so the myth of bourgeois science that humans have access to 'matter', through an elite-expert neutral method, which gives eternal, asocial, ahistoric 'Truth', will be no more.All humans will finally have the power to change their world, as Marx hoped for in socialism, rather than being produced by an elite, under capitalism.But… with you being an Engelsian Materialist, and having a faith in the god 'matter', you seriously believe in the 19th century positivist myth of 'Objective Truth', out there, simply waiting for humans to passively 'discover', so you never mention the need to produce truth, but simply lie that Marxists will 'ban the expression of certain views'.Such is the fruit of the 'thinkers' (I use the word very loosely) of the SPGB. Lies, abuse and secrecy of their plan to prevent workers from democratically producing 'scientific knowledge'.You're an ignorant bluffer, ALB.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

… truth will be available to all, there will be a barrel of truth, and each can take from the barrel of truth, and do what they want with it. 

As I've always said about your ideology, YMS, it's bourgeois liberalism, with the emphasis on 'individual choice of what exists', rather than the emphasis of Marx upon 'social production of what we democratically decide to produce', and your method is essentially US pragmatism.Thanks, anyway.

[LBird]

Well, I've given you a fair crack of the whip to answer a simple question, YMS, so I'll leave it there, and let other workers reading come to their own conclusions, as to why you won't give a simple answer.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

I take it that 'fixed' is a synonym for 'material',

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/intangible-fixed-assets-24612.html

Quote:

Intangible assets include operational assets that lack physical substance, such as patents, copyrights, trademarks, franchises and goodwill. A company’s intangible assets are often not reported on a company's financial statements or will be reported at significantly less than their actual value. This is because assets are accounted for at their historical cost. Unlike tangible fixed assets such as a building or machinery, intangibles are often developed internally without any direct measurable cost that can be capitalized. When an intangible is purchased, however, or when costs can be directly traced to the development of the asset, the cost is recorded as an intangible asset on the balance sheet.

Never assume…

I'm not 'assuming', YMS, I can see that you're not answering whether the SPGB thinks that physics, maths and truth is a social product, and thus should be democratically controlled by workers.This is not an 'assumption' that 'you're not answering': you're not answering.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Though, of course, the subtitle of one of Meiksins Wood's books was "Renewing Historical Materialism"Lbird does have a point, Meiksins does highlight the active party of human agents played in the creation of society, but as always it gets lost in his jumbled ontology and epistemologogy…

That's the closest you've come for some time, DJP, to even acknowledging that I might 'have a point'.I indeed do 'have a point', and it is both Marx's and Wood's, too.And why you keep hanging onto stressing 'materialism', as if it's of special significance, when for the last 2 1/2 years I've constantly pointed to Marx's 'Idealism Materialism', beats me.The point is, of course, that 'materialism' alone is Engels' misunderstanding of Marx's 'materialism' (meaning 'human social production', as opposed to 'idealism' as 'divine production').Marx could have been clearer, of course, but put into socio-historical context, his 'materialism' clearly encompasses 'ideas and inorganic nature' in a relationship. This relationship is 'idealism-materialism', not a pre-fixed, ahistorical, asocial, 'matter', or 'the physical'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Simple question, YMS: does 'intellectual wealth' include 'physics, maths and truth'?

Intellectual wealth contains the all intangible fixed assets.

[my bold]I take it that 'fixed' is a synonym for 'material', and so, since you haven't answered a direct question, that you are arguing that the SPGB will not have workers' democratic control of the production of maths, physics and truth.Why not just say so, and define 'socialism' as 'not workers' control, but elite control'?Then any workers interested in the democratic development of our class can move on in their search for fellow Democratic Communists, and leave the SPGB to its 'materialist', Engelsist, concerns.We Democratic Communists are concerned with the active, conscious production of all 'assets', that do not even yet exist, and so can't be 'fixed', as we workers haven't actively produced them, yet.The 'materialists' are interested in the already existing 'fixed', like bricks and mortar, not the dynamic production of our future world, which requires our class' 'theory and practice'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

The SPGB reserves the right for itself to define for workers what 'knowledge and consciousness' actually covers.

The Socialist Party has no such policy.  The working class must liberate themselves, and decide for themselves how their world will be organised, the SPGB makes no claim for how socialism will be run, save that it will be based on common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments of producing and distributing wealth: that includes physical objects and intellectual wealth alike.

[my bold]Simple question, YMS: does 'intellectual wealth' include 'physics, maths and truth'?If it does, why not simply say so?If it doesn't, what the fuck is 'intellectual wealth'?

[Author]

Posts