[LBird]

pgb, I've already done several threads about the inconsistencies in both Engels and Marx.So, you have to choose whether you want a philosophy that allows workers to make changes and create their own world, or one that interprets 'matter' without democracy, and leaves workers passive.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

The characteristiscs ONLY EXIST as A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN an active human consciousness in its practice of CREATING those objects that are objects-for-us, ie. 'organic nature'.

A relationship between an active human consciousness and what?

D'y'know, it's like dragging a dead horse through wet sand.I know I've said this before, and I know it will be ignored by you, again, but, hey, here goes once again, mainly for any curious workers who just might be reading.A relationship between consciousness and 'inorganic nature'.The social product of that relationship, by active humans labouring upon 'inorganic nature', is our object, the world of ideas and things that we create, and, because we are its creators, we can change.Engels mistakenly wanted to interpret 'inorganic nature', to 'know' the 'inorganic', as 'it is', without any human conscious intervention.You want to do the same. That's why you want to 'know' the 'qualities' and 'characteristic' of 'inorganic nature', because that's bourgeois materialism (which Engels ignorantly adopted), which pretends to be able to 'know' a 'reality' that humans have not created. Thus, they claim to interpret, for us dumb workers, the Truth of Reality.You, robbo, and the rest, wish to interpret 'The World' for workers, without their participation, and so you don't need the active democratic participation of the proletariat as they create their 'world-for-themselves'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Lbird #154 wrote:

Marx, me, you (and most socialists, I think) agree that 'inorganic nature' exists external to 'consciousness'. [

Lbird #163 wrote:

No, it's the character of the hurdle in relation to a human that would limit, an individual runner, for example.

OK, so, lets call it character, rather than quality.  You accept, you accept, I repeat, you accept that inorganic nature exists "external to 'consciousness'" — your own words.  That the things in inorganic nature have characteristics (your word is character).  These characteristic only manifest themselves to us via our relations, that's fine, but at the very least, you have to accept that A≠B, that is to say, A does not share the characteristics of B, and A cannot relate to a human in the same way as B, else A=B would be true.  That is to say, at the least, there are things we cannot truthfully say about an object.I have read what you have said, it appears you have not.

[my bold]"That the things in inorganic nature have characteristics (your word is character)."I DID NOT say this, why don't you read WHAT I WRITE, rather what your ideology wants to see."These characteristic only manifest themselves to us via our relations, that's fine…"No, no, no!The characteristiscs ONLY EXIST as A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN an active human consciousness in its practice of CREATING those objects that are objects-for-us, ie. 'organic nature'.I wish you'd read what I write, and then draw the conclusions from what I write about my ideology, and stop trying to impose your materialist categories upon Marx's ideas, of the 'theory and practice' of humans creating their 'organic nature'.It's Engelsian Materialism to assume that 'inorganic nature' has 'qualities' or 'characteristics' outside of any relation to a consciousness.If you and the rest believe in 'materialism', that's your choice, but don't pretend it's anything to do with Marx's views, which are concerned with the socio-historical production of our world (and not describing/interpreting the 'inorganic').That is, the changing of our organic world, which is our creation, and thus can be changed.You're concerned with 'matter', a world outside of us and our consciousness. It's Engels' concern, not Marx's.

[LBird]

YMS, you've stopped reading what I write, and are simple repeating the axioms of your own ideology, materialism.If you're happy with the belief that workers can't vote on 'truth', then so be it.You obviously have a method that tells you what 'truth' is, outside of any socio-historical consciousness. You have the key to 'The Truth', an eternal knowledge, once discovered, forever 'True'.Thus, your ideology is not democratic, but elitist.And it's nonsense, according to any scientists working today who take an interest in epistemology, including physicists, from whom I've given many quotes.But then, I've quoted Marx, Einstein, Pannekoek, Rovelli……no reasoned argument makes a dent in the Materialist Faith.You stick to 'matter', I'll stick to workers' democracy, in questions of production, including knowledge.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, anyone who looks to active, talking, matter will deny the democratic role of workers in creating our world (which includes the production of scientific knowledge).

I am active talking matter, so are you.

If so, why do you deny that only a vote can tell us what a rock 'is'?The 'truth' of what a rock 'is' can only be decided by us, the 'active', and not by an elite of physicists, who use hieroglyphics to bamboozle us, and pretend only they 'know'.If we're 'active', we decide. Not 'matter', or the 'active elite' who keep us as the 'passive mass'.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

I'm a Democratic Communist, and so this underpins my views of the social activity of physics.

So how does 'democratic communist' differ from socialist?Can you give references where Marx differentiates between the two?

Marx was a Democratic Communist, too, Vin.So, this will inform one's view of physics, as I said to Dave.Physics, being a social activity driven by social theory and social practice, is amenable to our proletarian democratic control.We have to decide 'what matter says', as Brian said. Matter does not speak for itself, especially not to 'physicists', who are a part of our society, and whose views emanate from our society. They are not a special elite, who have some form of consciousness which is not available to us, too.Lenin argued for that, and he based his views upon Engels' materialism, which makes 'matter' the 'active side', which is a nonsense, and so, since Marx was correct that theory and practice is the human method, the elite minority provide a hidden theory, but pretend to workers that 'matter' talks to them, and them alone (through 'practice and theory').So, anyone who looks to active, talking, matter will deny the democratic role of workers in creating our world (which includes the production of scientific knowledge).

[LBird]

Dave, the issue between us is that you espouse Engels' materialism, whilst I don't.I look to Marx's idealism-materialism, and so my view of physics is different to yours.This philosophical difference between us can't be solved by appealing to physics, because one's view of physics is based upon one's ideology.So, we have to discuss our philosophical assumptions prior to discussing physics.I'm a Democratic Communist, and so this underpins my views of the social activity of physics.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

…we make the rocks talk…

Yes, the 'active side' is us, not 'matter'.

Brian wrote:

But what intigues me is that you purposely avoid accepting the dictum of, 'I am therefore I think' in fear I suspect of consciously admitting that without matter thinking is a non-entity.

I don't know where you've got this from, Brian.Besides the obvious bourgeois phrasing of your dictum (surely socialists should be saying 'we', rather than 'I'?), I keep stressing Marx's 'theory and practice' (idealism-materialism).I suspect the Engelsist ideology that you hold, but seem to be unaware of, which tells you that there are only two alternatives, materialism and idealism, leads you to always see only a dichotomy, and since Marx stresses 'theory and practice' (which requires both ideas (consciousness) and inorganic nature), you have to ignore this and categorise any talk of 'ideas' as idealism.The unity of 'being and consciousness' is the basis of Marx's philosophy. And 'consciousness' is the 'active side', not Engels' notion of 'matter'.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

It seems to me you are forgetting that it takes the trigger(s)  of human matter interacting with the properties of organic and non-organic matter to produce human consciousness, which is just a chemical soup of energy transforming our senses into practical observations from which we can produce a theory and a social product.

Brian, you seem to be confusing the historical emergence of consciousness from inorganic nature, with the process of social cognition between consciousness and inorganic nature.Further, your use of the noun 'matter', as Kline points out, stems from Engels' usage (and the other 'materialists'), not from Marx's.Matter is not the 'trigger', as the materialists hold: this would make 'matter' the 'active side', which Marx denies, when he argues that consciousness is the active side, as for the idealists.Criticism of what exists is the 'trigger'. That's why Marx calls Capital  a 'critique', not a 'material trigger'.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

i would have thought evidence was theory confirmed by practice…or is that proof?

Yes, but 'theory', 'practice' 'evidence', 'proof', and indeed, 'truth', are socio-historical products, and thus change. It's only because you refuse to consciously acknowledge your own espousing of 'materialism' (which claims 'evidence', 'truth', etc. are qualities in matter, 'out there', and not social products), that means that you hold to an ideology which tells you 'what to think'. We all do; some acknowledge it, most don't. That's because bourgeois ideology tells everbody that they are 'individuals' and are not 'products of the nanny state' (ie. social individuals).

ajj wrote:

However my concern is that you have now given a case for homeopathy and any number of other quasi-medical theories by merely asserting they are ideological and no more valid than non-evidence based "medicines."

I've done nothing of the sort, alan.The reason you think that I have, is that your Engelsian ideology tells you that their are only two philosophical choices: 'materialism' and 'idealism'. Since I reject materialism, you categorise me as an idealist, and that I'm arguing that 'mere assertion' is as 'valid' as 'evidence'.No matter how often I stress 'social theory and practice, which ends in a vote', you will read 'LBird is a anti-science quack who will bring down civilisation if he's allowed to let workers decide about medicine'. That's the voice of materialism speaking through you, alan.

ajj wrote:

Therefore, i can't really get my head around…

…lots of things, alan. But if you keep discussing, and trying to reveal your own ideological beliefs, then you'll get there in the end.Of course, 'materialism' tells you that it isn't ideological, but merely a reflection of 'reality', 'the real world', so if you can't locate 'materialism' hisorically, as a social product of a class, then you can't do this.But, if you look to Marx, and his notions of socio-historical relational products (including 'truth'), then you have a chance to think this through.Don't ask only me, though, ask others, and read some works on these issues.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

My rudimentary understanding is that ideas do not spring forth from no-where. My use of conscious should read "aware" resulting from experience and observation…

But your 'rudimentary' is not 'rudimentary' at all, but a well-developed, historical, class-based, view of the world. The fact that you don't recognise this, but think that it's just your own, personal, idiosyncratic, individualist, 'understanding', just proves my point.No-one argues that ideas spring from no-where.The idealists argue that ideas spring from divine consciousness.The materialists argue that ideas spring from matter (no consciousness involved).The idealist-materialists (Marx's misnamed 'materialism') argue that ideas spring from human consciousness.So, what ideology do you follow (whether aware of it or not)?You say ' "aware" resulting from experience and observation': this is 'materialism', or, in modern terms, 'induction'.'Experience and observation' are not the source of 'awareness', according to Marx, but 'theory and practice' is.So, according to Marx (and, indeed, Einstein), 'social theory' determines 'what' an individual of that society, during their 'social practice', 'experiences and observes'. That is, 'awareness' is a product of socio-historical 'theory and practice'.The bourgeoisie argue otherwise: they argue that 'individuals experience', as individuals, without 'the nanny state telling them what to think'. Materialism is a product of a class society at a particular point in its development. And as a 'ruling class idea', it is still a very widespread ideological belief. You, yourself, apparently hold to it. Just use 'common sense' and your own eyes, it argues, and don't be taken in by 'ideas'.

ajj wrote:

An evidence- based scientist will say…

More ideology, alan.'Evidence' is a product of 'theory and practice' (Marx, again, I'm afraid), so a scientist employing one ideology will come up with 'evidence' which differs from the 'evidence' produced by a scientist employing a different ideology.'Evidence' is not a reflection of 'out there', the 'external world', Marx's 'inorganic nature', but the product of a relationship between an active consciousness and 'inorganic nature', which results in 'evidence' in our 'organic' world.The materialist scientists hide this relationship, and pretend to you that they don't have a 'consciousness', but have a neutral method that allows them (and them alone) to passively listen to the 'material conditions' (or, 'matter'), and that they simply repeat what 'matter' says to them. They are either ignorant or lying. The mathematicians and physicists are hiding their 'theory and practice', their active production of 'scientific evidence'. And you, having been raised in a bourgeois society, which stresses respect for the opinions of elites, simply believe them.Whilst workers, like you, look to 'materialism' (whether you know that you follow that ideology or not), they will be in thrall to technocrats and those who regard democracy as 'a fetish'.It's neither class consciousness nor a theory for workers' power, but elite consciousness and a theory for elite control.As I've said, why the SPGB espouses 'materialism' (even if 'unofficially', in members like you), I don't know. The politics that fit with materialism are Leninist, and given what some members of the party have argued on this thread, the practice of the SPGB in power would be, not what you think, but the theory of an elite put into practice by uncomprehending workers.No, alan, it's vital that workers take some interest in these issues, because they must look to a 'theory' that stresses their own thinking and self-conscious activity. This includes maths and physics, too, because those disciplines are part of the means of production.The role of class conscious socialists/communists is to find ways of explaining these ideas to a wider audience, and to reject the priest-Latin of maths as an explanation of physics, and to insist explanations of our world are comprehensible to all. This, too, is a policy of the SPGB, to help our class self-educate. But that policy is at odds with materialism – why self-develop, when an elite can tell you what 'material conditions' say, outside of our conscious production? Your 'resulting from experience and observation' is precisely this 'materialism'.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

We don't demand intellectualism of Marxist theory but simple acceptance of the world any conscious worker can see around him or her for themselves.

What was it Marx said about 'science'? No-one simply 'sees the world around', but understands it through ideas, and I think your term 'conscious' here, can be read as 'materialist'.

ajj wrote:

If, as you say, the Party and members exhibit Engelsian-cum-Leninist ideas, just what has been the manifestation of this within the Party over its 100 year of existence?

The 'materialism' that is clearly rife within both the Party and its close supporters.

ajj wrote:

Nor has the SPGB advocated substituting itself for the working class as a whole and directing fellow workers actions.

On this very thread, individual members have advocated that elite scientists (mathematicians and physicists, especially, but also the other so-called 'hard' sciences) substitute themselves for the proletariat. These members say that 'democracy won't work' in the production of the very ideas that we need to construct our world. So, the 'theory' will be provided by an elite, to a mere workforce who simply 'practice'.

ajj wrote:

Of course, i endorse what you say " full heads' can only be provided by workers' self-activity, their own 'theory and practice'." That is not a point of departure between you and i and the Party. I don't understand why you think it is. I often say to people…forget marx…forget engels…act if they hadn't been born.

Yes, there are, as you have said before, many points of agreement between us. Not least, I'm always criticising Charlie for being a shit writer, who is the real root of our problem, because even his close mate Engels couldn't properly understand Marx's works. If only Marx had used the term 'human production' for his 'materialism' and 'divine production' for 'idealism', we wouldn't be still debating it 150 years later (although, many writers have said much the same thing that I'm saying, since the late 19th century, that 'materialism' makes 'matter' the 'active side', as we can see from YMS's claim that 'inorganic nature' has fixed 'qualities', rather than 'qualities' being produced dynamically by the 'active side' of human 'theory and practice': that is, 'qualities' sit in 'organic nature'). But for all this, I regard the SPGB as the best of a bad bunch (of 'materialists', Engelsians just like the SWP and the other Trots), who seem to have a political structure at least changeable (unlike the 'democratic centralists').

ajj wrote:

Nothing in what you have written it seems to me avoids the fact that other ideologies can take root and divert workers from the goal of self-emancipation…nationalism…reformism…It was not Lenin's 'Materialism and Empirio-Criticism' that provided the blueprint to the Bolshevik dictatorship. But 'What is to be Done', and the inspiration for that was Kautsky and the German SPD…It was more a practical manual than philosophical treatise…Even our enemies ideas are not so complex…And many have seen through them in the past without the assistance of others …

Yes, and the 'other ideology' that has 'taken root to divert workers' is 'materialism'. When Lenin wrote WITBD he was already a materialist (which he confirmed in M&EC), and he got all this from Engels, Kautsky, SPD and the entire Second International. As I've already said, "many have seen through them in the past", and gone back to read Marx, through the lens of workers' self-activity. That destroys the 'myth of Marx's materialism'.

ajj wrote:

Of course i am at fault sometimes by over-simplifying my case…ideas are important for change, vital, in fact…and we should be refuting rival theories on the battlefield of ideas…We have to challenge and defeat other ideologies…one currently of importance being the yoke of religions in the Middle East…

The most dangerous religion to the conscious proletariat, though, is Religious Materialism, which claims 'matter' tells us 'what it is', and so we can't change it, as YMS claims when he says 'qualities are within inorganic nature', rather than are created by our relationship with it.

ajj wrote:

But i simply sought to say that the priority of people is first to fill their bellies to permit them to think…which is again a truism..

Yeah, but Leninism can do this. Surely our particular task, in a world that increasing the problem for workers is over-full bellies, is helping to produce class consciousness, that is, 'full heads'?Many have argued, prior to me, that 'materialism' empties workers' heads of their own self-creation as a class, and puts power into the hands of a special elite who tell the producers what 'the world is', a world of elite thinkers who provide the 'theory' for workers' 'practice', a world of 'scientists', of mathematicians and physicists, of a 'technocracy', who abhor the 'fetish of democracy'… and thus the workers' heads remain 'empty' and their practice is not self-developed, but guided by the 'theory' of an elite.Thanks again, alan, for a thoughtful post, which helps us all to get to the core of the debate. We might disagree, but it's important to find out precisely what we disagree about. I think that, with your help, we're getting there, to the 'Heart of Darkness' of 'materialism'.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

People with empty bellies don't hunger for a head full of ideals.

Just as easy to say: People with empty heads don't hunger for a belly full of ideals.Of course, there are no 'empty heads', just heads full of either proletarian ideas or bourgeois ideas.

ajj wrote:

As i posted earlier, there are nothing complicated about seeking socialism…just a few basic political principles to follow and these are mostly of practical political applications …

And this is one of those 'bourgeois ideas'.The myth that 'there's nothing complex', let workers just stick to 'a few basic' ideas, which are 'mostly practical'.This will get the likes of us killed, alan. The Leninists will then provide 'the complex ideas' which are 'mostly intellectual' for the workers to unthinkingly follow in their 'practice'.For socialism does require 'complex ideas', ideas that workers must provide for themselves, through democratic theory and practice. It's going to be a long, complex process, of building our class' consciousness of itself as the creator of its own world. And whilst workers are reluctant to engage in the drawing of the architectural plans, that Marx argues are required for the creation of the new building, then the plans will be provided to the intellectually passive, who are the labourly active.'Full bellies' can be provided by Leninism, but 'full heads' can only be provided by workers' self-activity, their own 'theory and practice'.I think that we fundamentally differ over this issue, alan, it pains me to say.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

i am receptive to wide interpretations of Marxist theory as long as they still accord with its core tenets and aims….YMS, LBird, Robbo…all still comrades in arms…despite this theoretical disagreement on things that i think would drive my fellow workers to despair and drink if they had to suffer the debate…

[my bold]I've just thought of another way of explaining my dilemma, alan.Imagine trying to explain Marx's concept of 'value' to mates who don't read much, aren't interested in reading Capital, and merely want 'higher wages'. They are clearly 'practical' people.So, you go through with them the schtick of 'socialism', better world, all for one and one for all, blah, blah, blah……and they simply ask, at the end of your best efforts, 'Yeah, sounds great… but will we get higher wages?' and 'If I don't have to work for wages, I'm just gonna treat the dickheads who work as my benefit as fools, and click my fingers at them everytime I want anything!'.You will be able to tell from these responses that you are not having much joy, and your notions of 'socialism' remain out of grasp of your mates.'Practical' people have no time for mere philosophising… that's for the clever shites at the top, with time on their hands…

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

And i said, for some this is an interesting exchange between comrades at a level others aren't a, having not studied it, nor do i think wish to study it.

Thanks for your response to my appeal for other comrades, outside of the 'usual suspects' (including me), to participate.Unfortunately, you've repeated what you've said before, about workers not having studied it, not wishing to study it, and not needing to study it.

ajj wrote:

Our "democratic control of production" doesn't require such philosophic discourses since it is for me and i suspect for others a practical problem…

I know you know little about philosophy, alan, and apparently care little to learn about it, but I can only warn you, as well-meaning comrade.Whilst workers consider our philosophical and methodological 'problems' for building socialism to be a simple, mere, 'practical' problem, they are espousing (clearly unknowingly) a philosophical and methodological approach that claims 'theory' emeges from 'practice'. That is, you 'do things' and the corresponding 'ideas' emerge 'after the practice'. That is, in philosophical terms, induction.Now, I know you will probably resent me saying this, alan, but you hold, now, an Engelsian viewpoint. You might be completely unaware of that, but it is so. You've learnt this from two sources:1. bourgeois ruling class ideas, under which influence we all grow up, and we try to fight and replace with socialist ideas; and2. Engels' mistaken embracing of this bourgeois philosophy, ie. materialism, which you'll have been exposed to as you've developed as a socialist, from bits and pieces of what others have told you.To me, whilst workers, and even comrades like you (and the others that I've listed, who disagree with me) embrace a political method that consists, in reality, of 'leave the thinking to the clever ones, and the rest of us will just get on building socialism', since this isn't a democratic method of 'theory and practice', will result in a pretence that 'practice and theory' is the proper method, and the 'theory' required will be provided by an elite.They'll pretend that the socialist method is 'practice and theory', whereas it will actually be 'elite theory, workers' practice, elite theory as a result'.So, what is my central point? It's that, unless you and the other comrades take an active interest in learning about these issues, you'll remain ignorant of just who is giving you the 'theory', and you'll believe that their hidden theory, which they give you, is (miraculously) emerging from your very own practice.It's not the way for workers to build democratic socialism, but is the way for an elite, who regard 'democracy as a fetish', to retain control for their own purposes. They'll swear otherwise, as do the Leninists, even now (that they're a vanguard for the class), and say they want the best for workers, but they won't let workers decide what's best for workers, in production, for themselves.'Best' will be defined by an elite. I have warned you, as have many others, throughout the 20th century.But, socialists persist with Engelsism, and it seems likely to persist well into the 21st century.

[Author]

Posts