[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

Happy new year Lbird, I think you elevate the level of discussion here even if some users find it a bit repetitive.

I also like seeing a good battle of wits too, even when i have little clue of what is being argued…. Ding Dong, Next round …

I know you're joking, alan, but if only you and some others would join in, and ask some different questions about something that you don't quite grasp, we might make some advances.Perhaps I might suggest an issue for you to ruminate upon.If you're believer in democratic politics within the workers' movement now, and in social production in any future socialism (which I think that you are, as am I), why wouldn't you extend this democratic sensibility to, say, physics or maths (which perhaps you wouldn't, at first sight)?Your admission, that you 'have little clue' about these issues, doesn't forbode well for the ability of the proletariat to run the means of production.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Happy new year Lbird, I think you elevate the level of discussion here even if some users find it a bit repetitive.

Happy new year to you, too, jdw.The problem with your analysis, though, is that to 'elevate the discussion here' requires lifting on behalf of both parties. No elevation or comprehension ever seems to really take place, because, as you've noticed, I have to repetitively keep answering the same questions.Now, we're onto them asking for the same quotes from Marx, all over again!We're barely bumping along on the bottom, continuously, round and round…At least if you yourself asked me some different questions, we might at least have different round of repetition for the new year.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

We could choose another term entirely, which doesn't employ either 'materialism' or 'idealism' (Marx suggested 'humanism' or 'naturalism')

Citation needed.

It's not a citation that's needed, DJP, but for you to question your Engelsian faith.I've given this quote several times on different threads before, and it's not had any noticable affect on your long-held Religious Materialism, but here goes anyway. Other comrades might benefit from reading Marx, even if you, twc and Vin don't:

Marx, EPM, Collected Works 3, p. 336, wrote:

Here we see how consistent naturalism or humanism is distinct from both idealism and materialism, and constitutes at the same time the unifying truth of both.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/hegel.htmEdit: add YMS to the list.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

But what is truth?

I already explained this, DJP.There are two theories that I've already outlined, but just for you I'll repeat myself:1. 'Truth' is a reflection; or2. 'truth' is a relation.Once you have had a think about these two, and tell us which one you adhere to, we can continue with your other questions.To give you some indication of where Marx and I stand, we adhere to 2. This shouldn't come as any surprise to those who look to Marx, who was always bangin' on about 'relationships'.We can then proceed to outline both theories' views about things, criteria and sentences.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

…without mediation of practice…

This is why I can't have a reasoned discussion with you, twc.Who, out of any of us, is arguing for 'no practice'?Your posts are full of this, a litany of the supposed faults of Marx's idealism-materialism, which are nothing to do with idealism-materialism, but to do  with idealism.I keep explaining why you do this: because the ideology you follow only permits two alternatives, materialism and idealism. Thus, by logic, if my position is not materialism, and it isn't, then by Engels' logic, it must be idealism.So, no matter how many times I stress the necessity of 'practice' in Marx's formula of 'theory and practice', you are blind to this and read it as 'theory', alone.And following Engels, you counterpose the mere 'theory' of idealism, to 'practice and theory' of Engels' materialism.But, Marx's method was 'theory and practice', the exact opposite of the inductive method argued for by Engels.Humans don't start from 'practice', but 'theory'. Read the quote that I gave from Marx earlier, from Capital. [edit: see next post for the quote, again]Anyway, unless you stop arguing with a figment of your own fears and engage with what I'm actually saying, you won't ever even learn the epistemological views of Marx, much less agree with them. You're following Engels, not Marx, twc.

[LBird]

Marx wrote:

 Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate Nature’s productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway. We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind us of the mere animal. An immeasurable interval of time separates the state of things in which a man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, from that state in which human labour was still in its first instinctive stage. We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human. A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement. He not only effects a change of form in the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to which he must subordinate his will. And this subordination is no mere momentary act. Besides the exertion of the bodily organs, the process demands that, during the whole operation, the workman’s will be steadily in consonance with his purpose.

[my bold] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htmPurposive action is 'theory and practice'.'Practice and theory' is the pretence that humans generate theory from their actions. It is induction, and the method of Engels.Marx argues that our 'imagination' comes first, not 'primitive instinct'.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

I have to say, LBird, in  all my time in academia and political debate I have never come across so much  twaddle  Happy new year

Problem is, Vin, you have never come across academic and political debate, otherwise you would engage in a debate, for example, about 'theories of truth', as on DJP's thread about that.The 'twaddle' is the materialism of Engels, which is entirely outdated, and can't stand up to informed debate, and has degenerated into a 'faith' followed by people who put their trust in other misguided socialists.Anyway, happy new year – perhaps this year, we'll make some progress in our discussions.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

LBird wrote:

twc … is simply reflecting the 'concrete object' as 'it really is'.

No, not twc, but Marx, who assertsI do not proceed from “concepts”.I analyse a concretum, the commodity.I proceed from the simplest social form in which the product of labour presents itself in contemporary society, and this is the “commodity”.I analyse the commodity, initially in the form in which it appears.Why would Marx, or anyone else, analyse something he already knew as “it really was”?

Let's look at the logic of this.I assert twc is talking about 'it really is'.twc then asserts that it is 'not twc, but Marx, who asserts' this.Then, twc asks, apparently askance, why would Marx analyse as 'it really was'.But, a 'commodity' is a 'social form'.'Society' involves 'ideas'.No wonder workers ignore this 'materialist' nonsense.If the SPGB continues along this non-democratic path, in which the 'concrete' is the 'active side', it will disappear. And it's nothing to do with Marx.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

…to build a practical science … upon a concrete object, for what it really is…

[my bold]Comrades who are also following the other thread started by DJP on the subject of 'Truth', will recognise which of the two theories that I outlined is the one embraced by twc.That is, twc is starting from a theory.He's pretending that he's not starting from a 'theory of truth', but is simply reflecting the 'concrete object' as 'it really is'.This is 19th century positivism, pre-Einsteinian physics.twc is over a hundred years out of date.It's got nothing to say to 21st century socialists, and indeed insists that we can't change 'what really is', that is, 'what reality is' prior to our changing of it.The active element in this ideology is 'matter', the 'concrete', rather than humans. But it's a lie: humans do change their world, and so  the materialists must posit an elite who, if the proletariat doesn't supply its democratic consciousness, themselves supply an elite, special, consciousness.This is Leninism. The 'active side' is the cadre, not the class.

[LBird]

You really should read Kline's article, twc.Your biggest problem is your Engelsism, which reduces our choice to either materialism or idealism. This is Engels' dichotomy.This is displayed by your insistence:

twc wrote:

Materialists, unlike idealists, merely commit to considering these processes to be natural processes…

'Naturalism', according to Marx, is the unity of idealism and materialism in a philosophy of practice, ie. theory and practice.So, like Marx, I'm neither an idealist nor a materialist, but an idealist-materialist.You don't recognise this category, and I've explained why you don't.Your personalising of the issue, by abusing me, just displays your inability to put together a coherent, socio-historical explanation of these issues.If any comrades wish to adopt your position, they'll both remain stuck within 19th century thought and be unable to account for our human ability to change our world.Finally, your dismissal of workers' democracy (their ability to control physics and maths by a vote) should give any other comrades, unsure of where your Engelsist thinking leads, the impetus to look at the politics of Engels' inheritor, Lenin.Materialism is a philosophy for an elite.

[LBird]

Perhaps to oversimplify, but two views of 'truth' can be seen as:1. 'Truth' (note capital letter for emphasis, also 'The Truth') is a reflection of 'reality', 'out there', 'external world', as it is;2. 'truth' (note lower case for de-emphasis, also 'truths') is a relationship between 'the observer' and 'out there', etc. as it is produced.In the former, there is no need to examine 'the observer', because a method is said to exist which can be used to 'tell it as it is'.In the latter, there is a need to examine 'the observer', because the method is a relational method, which by its relational nature produces an 'is' that can change, due to variations in the relationship.It's possible to have a civilised discussion about this, but I don't hold out much hope, because of the ideological and political beliefs involved.Shit! I just realised, the former insists that 'there are no ideological beliefs in its method!', and it sees anyone who says otherwise as 'a relativist loony, out to destroy civilisation as we know it!'.Oh, well… welcome to 2016. Same old.

[LBird]

Right, no more responses from me, unless it's questions/discussion about Kline, which is supposed to be the purpose of the thread.Have a happy new year, comrades.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

You're a physicalist and a materialist, DJP, so you believe that 'matter' determines our ideas. This robs a democratic society, like socialism, of its own power to determine knowledge, and places that power into the hands of an elite, who pretend to know 'what matter says'.Philosophically, you are a Leninist, notwithstanding your professed 'political' views. In any political battle with the democratic proletariat, you'll be compelled to support the elitist materialists (ie. Leninists), because they too pretend defer to 'matter'.

Ad hominem.Is all matter rocks?

LBird wrote:

Or do you agree with democratic control of physics and maths, and thus prove that I'm mistaken about your Engelsism?

You've had your chance, DJP.You're Leninist, out of Engels.This is not personal attack, but political analysis. You don't like talking about politics, because it will reveal your anti-democratic views.Since you think 'matter/physical' is not political (and thus can't be voted upon), you revert to your bourgeois obsession with 'things' (read: 'property'). You will not have democracy in socio-economic production, because that includes ideas as much as factory widgets.

[LBird]

moderator1 wrote:

Reminder: 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

But I'm forced to keep saying the same thing, because the SPGB members keep asking the same questions and ignoring my answers.DJP is back to his obsession with 'matter', and complaining that I'm 'being personal' when he's asked about his politics!Is this a site for critical political discussion, or  just a forum for the ignorant and misinformed to continue to delude themselves?Oh, yeah… and to continue to waste my time.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

No, humans are the creative matter, Vin.

Vin wrote:

So matter creates. Matter is creative.

LBird wrote:

No, Vin, rocks do not create. 

So all matter is rocks?

I wondered when you would be compelled to make your non-contribution.You're a physicalist and a materialist, DJP, so you believe that 'matter' determines our ideas. This robs a democratic society, like socialism, of its own power to determine knowledge, and places that power into the hands of an elite, who pretend to know 'what matter says'.Philosophically, you are a Leninist, notwithstanding your professed 'political' views. In any political battle with the democratic proletariat, you'll be compelled to support the elitist materialists (ie. Leninists), because they too pretend defer to 'matter'.Or do you agree with democratic control of physics and maths, and thus prove that I'm mistaken about your Engelsism?

[Author]

Posts