[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

It's not called idealism-materialism, the correct term is Underpantism-Struddlism (as Marx wrote in his seminal text "Materialism, my Arse").  Only bourgeois deviationists, led by Engels in his viscious text "Why I love Oxymorons" use the term Idealism-Materialism.

That's just about your level, YMS.Philosophical debate is a closed book to 'materialists'.And democracy certainly is off your agenda, since you think that you can tell workers that 'matter is the active side', and they have to obey an elite with access to 'matter'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Marx himself defines what he means by "means of production" in section 1 on "The Labour Process or the Production of Use Values" of  Chapter 7 of Capital but he had already used the term in the second paragraph of Capital. Also in the first chapter, there's his well known reference to socialism/communism as "a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common,"Here's the key passage from that section (the whole section is worth reading for its clarity):

Quote:

The elementary factors of the labour-process are 1, the personal activity of man, i.e., work itself, 2, the subject of that work, and 3, its instruments.The soil (and this, economically speaking, includes water) in the virgin state in which it supplies man with necessaries or the means of subsistence ready to hand, exists independently of him, and is the universal subject of human labour. All those things which labour merely separates from immediate connexion with their environment, are subjects of labour spontaneously provided by Nature. Such are fish which we catch and take from their element, water, timber which we fell in the virgin forest, and ores which we extract from their veins. If, on the other hand, the subject of labour has, so to say, been filtered through previous labour, we call it raw material; such is ore already extracted and ready for washing. All raw material is the subject of labour, but not every subject of labour is raw material: it can only become so, after it has undergone some alteration by means of labour.An instrument of labour is a thing, or a complex of things, which the labourer interposes between himself and the subject of his labour, and which serves as the conductor of his activity. He makes use of the mechanical, physical, and chemical properties of some substances in order to make other substances subservient to his aims. [2] Leaving out of consideration such ready-made means of subsistence as fruits, in gathering which a man’s own limbs serve as the instruments of his labour, the first thing of which the labourer possesses himself is not the subject of labour but its instrument. Thus Nature becomes one of the organs of his activity, one that he annexes to his own bodily organs, adding stature to himself in spite of the Bible. As the earth is his original larder, so too it is his original tool house. It supplies him, for instance, with stones for throwing, grinding, pressing, cutting, &c. The earth itself is an instrument of labour, but when used as such in agriculture implies a whole series of other instruments and a comparatively high development of labour.  No sooner does labour undergo the least development, than it requires specially prepared instruments. Thus in the oldest caves we find stone implements and weapons. In the earliest period of human history domesticated animals, i.e., animals which have been bred for the purpose, and have undergone modifications by means of labour, play the chief part as instruments of labour along with specially prepared stones, wood, bones, and shells. The use and fabrication of instruments of labour, although existing in the germ among certain species of animals, is specifically characteristic of the human labour-process, and Franklin therefore defines man as a tool-making animal. Relics of bygone instruments of labour possess the same importance for the investigation of extinct economic forms of society, as do fossil bones for the determination of extinct species of animals. It is not the articles made, but how they are made, and by what instruments, that enables us to distinguish different economic epochs. Instruments of labour not only supply a standard of the degree of development to which human labour has attained, but they are also indicators of the social conditions under which that labour is carried on. Among the instruments of labour, those of a mechanical nature, which, taken as a whole, we may call the bone and muscles of production, offer much more decided characteristics of a given epoch of production, than those which, like pipes, tubs, baskets, jars, &c., serve only to hold the materials for labour, which latter class, we may in a general way, call the vascular system of production. The latter first begins to play an important part in the chemical industries.In a wider sense we may include among the instruments of labour, in addition to those things that are used for directly transferring labour to its subject, and which therefore, in one way or another, serve as conductors of activity, all such objects as are necessary for carrying on the labour-process. These do not enter directly into the process, but without them it is either impossible for it to take place at all, or possible only to a partial extent. Once more we find the earth to be a universal instrument of this sort, for it furnishes a locus standi to the labourer and a field of employment for his activity. Among instruments that are the result of previous labour and also belong to this class, we find workshops, canals, roads, and so forth.In the labour-process, therefore, man’s activity, with the help of the instruments of labour, effects an alteration, designed from the commencement, in the material worked upon. The process disappears in the product, the latter is a use-value, Nature’s material adapted by a change of form to the wants of man. Labour has incorporated itself with its subject: the former is materialised, the latter transformed. That which in the labourer appeared as movement, now appears in the product as a fixed quality without motion. The blacksmith forges and the product is a forging. If we examine the whole process from the point of view of its result, the product, it is plain that both the instruments and the subject of labour, are means of production, and that the labour itself is productive labour.

Yes, Marx includes both ideas and tangible things. He's talking about 'theory and practice', not 'matter'. He's describing social activites by humans, not 'active matter'.This is a text about 'idealism-materialism', not Engels' bourgeois 'materialism'.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

You can get a pocket paperback here if you want it in printhttp://www.lulu.com/shop/harold-walsby/spgb-utopian-or-scientific/paperback/product-21092281.html

I was going to order the book to read, jdw, but it doesn't seem to be available in the usual sources.Have you got an ISBN?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Labriola will have meant by "means of production" what nearly everybody else did and still does, i.e. the materials that originally came from nature, the machines and tools used to fashion these into useful things, and the buildings where this takes place. Actually, our Object, drawn up in 1904, is even more precise by distinguishing between "means of production" and "instruments of production", i.e between materials from nature ("means") and the human-made machines and constructions ("instruments"):

Quote:

The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.

Whilst I would class 'social products' in the 'means of production' (as would Marx), if Labriola didn't, then he was wrong. That would be 'materialism', the ideology of Engels.But, you claim that the SPGB also includes 'instruments' within the 'democratic' purview.Does 'instruments' include maths and physics, are are you still employing Engels' 'materialism', which defines 'stuff' as 'material', rather than both social products, thoughts and stuff.We've had some initial discussions before on this issue of 'definition', when we spoke of Dietzgen: for him, as for Marx, the ideal and the material had equal weight.So, the problem once more is whether one is an Engelsian 'materialist' (who defines, like you, 'production' as about 'machines, tools, buildings, constructions', ie. 'tangible matter') or if one is a Marxist 'idealist-materialist' (who defines, like me, 'production' as  including social ideas as well as your list).I suggest that unless we define what 'means' include (either 'material' or 'ideal-material'), then we will talk at cross-purposes.I further suggest that Marx was discussing 'social production', not 'matter'. The latter is Engels' misunderstanding.'Social production' clearly includes 'ideas' (and so, maths and physics).

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

I may have suggested Walford http://gwiep.net/wp/?page_id=95

Thanks for the link, comrade.I'll have a read later, busy for the next few hours.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

 Do you have any links, that I could read up on Walsby's views?

I referred you to his work a long time ago

But apparently you're keeping hold of your ball this time, eh, Vin?Or you could provide a link, unless it's now your personal property, and you're taking it home, so the naughty kid can't play with it, too.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

By coincidence there's an article in the latest Socialist Standard (February) on Labriola written by one of our comrades from Italy and so with access to his writings in the original Italian including on "materialismo storico":http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2016/no-1338-february-2016/antonio-labriola-strict-marxist

Yeah, seems a pretty even-handed article.Labriola was especially correct on the need that:

Labriola, article p. 15, wrote:

‘We must insist on the expression ‘democratic socialisation of the means of production’…

But our argument seems to be about  the content of 'means': simply 'material' tools, or including scientific ideas and techniques.If 'means' includes Marx's 'theory and practice', then it's as much 'ideal' as it is 'material'.If 'means' are just 'tangible things', then the rocks are in charge of us.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

The early parts of this text suggest a critique of materialismhttps://libcom.org/library/spgb-utopian-or-scientific-fallacy-overwhelming-minority

Can't get access to those documents, jdw.Do you have a pdf?

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Is it fair to say Walsby rejected materialism as a SPGB member?

I'd be interested to know if he adopted Marx's 'theory and practice', jdw, as a replacement for Engels' 'materialism'. Many thinkers have suggested this need for a wariness of Engels, since Labriola in 1896.Do you have any links, that I could read up on Walsby's views?

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

AFAIK robbo is a non-member which leaves about 2% of total SPGB membership at most who have disagreed with you on this forum.

But 100% of active, posting, members, jdw!I notice that you haven't denied the 'materialist faith' in the god 'matter'!It might only take one poster to restore the democratic credentials of the SPGB, which have been so roughly dismissed by the, err… ahem… '2%'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

And where does it say in the SPGB Object that 'there will be no democratic control in science' ?

No one here has ever said that, we have repeatedly said how scientific resources and institutions will be democratically managed. Universities would have to become democratic associations; learned societies would continue to exist and would be able to freely produce and distribute their journals to libraries which anyone would be able to access ; individuals would have the free time to study and learn.  the community would allocate resources to these activities: land, buildings, lab equipment, ICT.  Worlwide bodies would promote conferences and the distribution of ideas; the internet would be barrier free and all learned journals would be free to read online. etc.  The whole community would have access to the information they choose to access and the capacity to join the ongoing openm ended debate, which no-one would have the right or power to shut down.Of course, democracy means the right of minorites to try and become majorities, so that must include promotion and protection of heterodox views.

Whilst I agree with the above, YMS, I see that you've avoided my question about 'democratic control' of physics and maths, amongst other human social productive activites.If not us, 'who' or 'what' determines 'scientific truth'?The bourgeoisie claim to have a 'neutral', 'non-political' method which allows 'academics' or 'elite experts' an access to 'Truth', and that the rest of us do not have the ability now, or capability to develop along with our developing class consciousness, and so this 'Truth' must be produced by an elite.The bourgeoisie introduced this ruling class idea (and myth) when they began to achieve political and economic domination for their class. They call it 'being objective'.But we now know that that claim was a lie, and even their own physicists (those who bother to consider it, anyway, not the majority) admit that they do not have a 'neutral' method, but that their method is entirely 'human' (and thus, for us, socio-historical).Once the revolutionary proletariat realise that 'the bourgeoisie are making it up, and always have been', they'll realise that we, too, can make up our 'socially-objective' world, to our own purposes, and thus change it.The 'materialists' object to this, because 'materialism' is a bourgeois ideology, which fits elite political control, hence the history of Leninism and its philosophy, materialism.Materialists regard 'matter' as the determining, active side.Socialists regard human social productive activity as the 'active side': theory and practice.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Since we're being asked:

SPGB Object wrote:

The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.

[my bold]Surely physics and maths come under 'means and instruments', YMS?Surely the 'interests of physics research' and the 'interests of truth' come under 'the interest of the whole community'?And where does it say in the SPGB Object that 'there will be no democratic control in science' ?

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Thus, we all would be in your debt if you will kindly point us to the source in the 49-volume Marx–Engels Collected Works in which Marx states categorically that truth can only be decided by universal voting on it.

Marx, Rules of The International, wrote:

Considering,That the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves…

http://marx.eserver.org/1864-international/1864-rules.txtSorry, twc, but no matter how hard I search, I can't find the point where you claim that Marx 'states categorically' that 'Truth can only be decided by an elite, unelected minority'.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

… and an entire party aguing that 'socialism' means 'elite control of the means of production'.

 Untrue. You don't know what we mean by socialism. 

Oh, I do know what youse mean, Vin!I keep asking you to confirm that, for the SPGB, 'socialism' means 'the democratic control of the means of production', and youse all keep refusing to confirm that.The reason that you can't do that, is that the ideology employed by the SPGB is 'materialism', the same ideology employed by Lenin, and this ideology insists that 'matter' determines 'what it is'. Hence, no room for 'democratic control by workers' in determining just what 'matter' is.Only a party that argues for workers' power is interested in 'socialism'; a party imprisoned in 'materialism' can't do this, because 'materialism' denies the role of class consciousness in determining 'matter'.For 'materialists', 'matter' just 'is'. And we workers cannot argue with this assumption, and must obey those who 'know matter' just 'as it is'.The SPGB makes such an elitist claim, that they are 'materialists' who have a special insight into 'matter', and so the party denies the right and power of the class conscious proletariat to 'change its world', as defined by the proletariat.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

If i was interested in discovering more about what socialism means, this thread cannot be recommended, can it?

On the contrary, alan, it's enormously revealing!There's one worker arguing for the 'democratic control of the means of production'…… and an entire party aguing that 'socialism' means 'elite control of the means of production'.This is the SPGB, alan. Wake up. They've been doing this since 1904, just like Lenin, with the same ideology.I'm sure any workers reading, wanting to find out how they can collectively come to control the means of production, will draw the appropriate conclusions.

[Author]

Posts