[LBird]

Dave B wrote:

So what you are saying is if you consciously plan and implement something you are not a materialist; you are an idealist-materialist. 

If we choose to put it that way, then 'yes'. If we are to combat Engels' misunderstanding of Marx, the misunderstanding of Marx that leads to Leninism, the non-Marx term 'materialist history', then we are compelled to link 'materialism' with 'idealism'.We could choose another term entirely, which doesn't employ either 'materialism' or 'idealism' (Marx suggested 'humanism' or 'naturalism'), but while the anti-democratic term 'materialism' is current, we have to correct it, for interested workers.We must insist on 'theory and practice', which is, as Kline's article suggests when discussing 'economic/material' in Marx, as much about ideas as about the physical.

Dave B wrote:

Feuerbach the first self described anti idealist and materialist wouldn’t like that much I suspect. 

But Marx wasn't a 'Feuerbachian', so that a consideration of Feuerbach's likes and dislikes needn't worry Democratic Communists.

Dave B wrote:

And thus conscious human beings (a tautology for most of us perhaps) can’t be materialists as they are mutually exclusive; unless they have no idea what they are doing or why they are doing it. 

No, they are not 'mutually exclusive': consciousness and being, subject and object, mind and matter, etc., are inescapably interlinked.This is where most physicists are still going astray. No matter what Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Bohm, etc. say when philosophising about this relationship, most day-to-day research ignores this, and continues to just 'do science'. They even ignore Godel's works, and continue to believe that 'nature' is 'mathematical', a habit they picked up from Gallileo. This is the 'common sense' belief even today about 'physics' (for 'common sense', read 'ruling class idea').The bourgeoisie removed 'consciousness' from 'being' (supposedly) in its search for 'Truth'. This is clear from the setting up of the Royal Society in London in the 1660's, and other so-called 'scientific societies' across Europe.Of course, the political effect of this 'separation of being from consciousness' was the separation of property from society, and so the end of any idea of democratic control of production, that is, Communism.We can only control our productive world (material/economic, which is ideal-material, subject-object, etc.) when we realise that we control maths and physics, because humans produce knowledge, and we acknowledge that 'truth' has a history, and different socities, having different purposes (which Marx mentions in Capital), produce socio-historical truth. Thus, we can change our ideal-material world, because we are its creator. We create our own object, for our purposes.Finally, whilst the proletariat is bamboozled by 'materialism' (or physicalism, to use a modern term), it must remain passive, because, as Marx pointed out in the 1840s, the 'active side' of idealism is required to change our world.Any belief that 'science' discovers 'True Knowledge', which, once found, is 'True Forever', an eternal, unchangeable 'Fact', leaves us in the hands of 'a special elite', who have the consciousness required, and who pretend that this consciousness is not available to the 'masses', and so denies democratic control of the means of production.That is, of course, Leninism, and has nothing to do with Marx's project about workers consciously liberating themselves.

[LBird]

northern light wrote:

LBird,regarding the pfd link you mention in #10, it will not open for my computer.

If you do a google search with the terms "Kline" and "Although Marx did not initiate" (ie. the initial phrase from the text I quoted), you should get only two hits, the Kline article, and now this thread.Hope that works for you, nl.

[LBird]

Dave B wrote:

You have lost me now L Bird; are you saying leafcutter ants are idealist materialist because “They produce their food”? 

Have you never heard of 'theory and practice', Dave?Marx's idealism-materialism requires humans to creatively change their environment. That is, they plan and implement. They consciously produce their conditions of life.How you read Marx to be saying that 'leafcutter ants' do this, is quite baffling.

Marx, Capital, Chapter 7, The Labour Process, 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.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htmLeafcutter ants are not mentioned, Dave, only some other insects, which clearly do not use 'idealism-materialism', theory and practice.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Nothing in your last post contributes in anyway to the discussionYou have started early. All your discussions end up with you labelling an opponent (religious materialist), setting up a strawman then attacking it.You are also attacking the rest of the forum members as 'religious materialists' in order t elicite a response from themIt's pathetic 

Perhaps pathetic, Vin, but true, too.You'll notice that no-one will attempt to actually read Kline's article, to which I've given a pdf link, and discuss the meaning of Marx's use of 'material'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Yes, Marx was distinguishing against idealism, the notion that nothing exists except ideas.  He also notes, that to even have ideas, humans have to eat, first, and that their minds come with bodies attached.

Ho, hum.Religious Materialism, once more.I can but try, to encourage reading and critical thinking.For humans, they have to think first, what to eat. They produce their food, even by hunting and gathering, for the social band.The RM-ers would have us believe that the active pies thrust themselves into our passive mouths… after they've consulted with the active rocks first, of course…Marx was an Idealist-Materialist.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

DJP wrote:

A stupid question with an even more stupid answer from LBird. What was that thing about "you can't blow up a social relationship"?

What an intellegent response. I wont bother answering that one, I will just call it 'stupid' What a dumb response.

The ironic thing is that DJP, whilst pretending to be concerned about 'social relationships', thinks that the mind is not a 'social relationship', but is inside the 'brain'!'Materialists/Physicalists', eh?I can now bet that 'irony' will go over the heads not just of workers, as ALB claims in his elitist materialist mode, but over the heads of the party members who subscribe to 'materialism'.Irony abounds, today!Who'd've thought today's axis would be Vin-LBird! Welcome, comrade, to the dark side!

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

A stupid question with an even more stupid answer from LBird. What was that thing about "you can't blow up a social relationship"?

And a 'material response' from a stupid physicalist who can't 'feel' a joke.Grow up.

[LBird]

Perhaps the way to answer this to any enquiring worker, is to say:'Yes, we support the bombing of all enemies of the working class, and since we don't discriminate, we're all for the airborne assault upon the ISIS-Blair-Bush Axis.'That is, we're all for one RAF squadron bombing ISIS, as long as another one RAF squadron is bombing the Houses of Parliament and the White House.I'd add that, personally, I'd leave the bombing of ISIS until after the War Criminal Tony Blair is targetted with one of those miraculous bombs that avoid 'collateral damage' and only hit him on the head, but simultaneous bombing will do.Then, we can't be accused of favouring ISIS. Or, indeed, favouring their mirror-image. Or, being pacifists!If nothing else, it will stimulate a wider debate with the 'enquiring worker'.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

What sort of 'control/power' do you think that they would 'have over you'?

but that is my question of you and I would appreciate if you can explain to me how an 'elite will be able to influence and control me in a socialist society. 

If you're a 'materialist' (and you say that you are), then you must believe that 'matter' trumps 'social consciousness'. And so, those who can tell you what 'matter' is, outside of a society's social and historical development (which clearly changes), must be accepted as telling you The Truth.If you understand the social relationship between priests and laity, then you'll understand the relationship between 'an elite' and 'you'.So, if you, as an individual, have picked up a rock, and you think it is solid, and 'materialists' tell you that 'it is solid, outside of any consciousness', you'll simply believe them.Do I need to point out the dangers of both 'starting from oneself as an individual' and 'attributing power to an object', for you to recognise the starting point of bourgeois political economy in 'individuals' and 'commodities', as told by those with 'private productive property'?Why trust bourgeois physicists, but not bourgeois economists? They both produce ideas that many simply believe in.Unless we democratise all social production, we leave ourselves vulnerable to the power of an elite.Perhaps the best way for me to 'explain' is to call the elite 'Religious Materialists'. This might give you some insight into the problem. If you believe in 'matter', it's synonymous with belief in 'grace'. 'Grace' was as real as 'matter', to a certain social consciousness.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

 By your party view, that would be a 'democratic banning', and I can't argue with that. I would just stop trying to post, if I was unable to post.That would be the paradox: a democrat democratically banned.

But it is a paradox of your own creation.  At the moment, you are the minority elite it is you that suggests the majority ban the 'elite' .

A 'minority' is not necessarily an 'elite', Vin.I'm surprised that I have to explain this to you: 'an elite' is 'a minority with power'.I'm a minority in the democratic sense, which we'll always have with us, as long as we argue for democracy: I'm 'a minority without power', and so not 'an elite'.An 'elite' cannot be outvoted (so 'materialists' cannot be outvoted: they have a special access to 'matter'), but a 'minority' is always outvoted, by definition.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

We would remain the passive recipients of 'Scientific Knowledge', who would only control the production of 'factory widgets', but not the production of our universities and our research.An elite would remain in command of social thinking.

I would appreciate an explanation of how this 'elite' would have advantage over 'passive recipients' in a socialist society?Why should I fear this 'elite' and what sort of control/power  would they have over me.

If physics produces 'knowledge' that can't be voted upon (ie, that 'truth' can't be elected), then the producing elite would be the 'active side', and the workers would be the 'passive recipients'.Clearly, it wouldn't be a 'socialist society', as I think it should be defined.That is, a society that has its production democratically controlled. The production of 'ideas', 'knowledge', 'Truth', would be in the hands of an elite.What sort of 'control/power' do you think that they would 'have over you'?Are you willing to even allow the possibility? We might have our disagreements, Vin, but I can't picture you 'obeying an elite'. You're an argumentative bastard, just like me.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

It will be strange to see the majority here, supposedly 'democratic' socialists, voting for 'matter', rather than 'class conscious proletariat', as the decider of human truths.

So we, the majority, have voted for 'materialism' but you do not accept that vote. You think you are right. And you accuse us of being elitist?

But I do 'accept the vote', Vin.The SPGB has made it clear to me, a non-member, that my view of a 'democratic proletariat' has been rejected, in favour of the view of a 'democratic party'.That's why I'm a non-member. Clearly, at any time my minority view (in party terms) can be banned, if it is believed that I'm gaining some minority traction anongst the membership, and that was seen as destructive of 'democratic party-ism'. By your party view, that would be a 'democratic banning', and I can't argue with that. I would just stop trying to post, if I was unable to post.That would be the paradox: a democrat democratically banned.Of course, the solution is 'worker's democracy', rather than 'party democracy', but we aren't there yet, are we? The SPGB argues for a 'democracy' outside of 'workers', just as it argues for 'matter' outside of 'consciousness'.That will allow the post-revolutionary regime to be one of a party elite, which is Leninism.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What you say is ideological, Lbird. There is no "truth" in what you post. My comment is just as true as yours. I demand a vote !! If what i say is not as true as what you say then i'm taking my ball home and not playing with you anymore

I'm all for your suggestion, alan!Let's vote!It will be strange to see the majority here, supposedly 'democratic' socialists, voting for 'matter', rather than 'class conscious proletariat', as the decider of human truths.Paradoxically, both I'll lose, and so too will the party. Because it will be a result that claims that the party can know something that workers can't – otherwise, they'd let workers vote on 'truth'.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Bertrand Russell, my favourite liberal "socialist"

Yeah, Russell was an elitist, who thought that his 'average man', 'the majority of the population', were collectively unable to out-think him. What a knob.It's easy to show how '2+2=11', and I'm sure that the interplay of temperature and pressure makes his 'cold/freeze' and 'hot/boil' relationships much more debateable, without even introducing the question of the framework of consciousness that determines what counts as a 'relationship'.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

As you said …facts even of physical science can be ideological and change to suit a ruling class, eh? 

[my bold]What I, Fleck, Pannekoek and Marx actually say is that 'facts even of physical science are ideological'.The only people who argue that 'facts' are not related to a consciousness, that 'scientific knowledge' is a mere reflection of something 'out there', that 'Truth', once 'discovered', is 'True' forever, are those ideologically influenced by bourgeois 19th century science, which, most tragically, also included Engels. That is, so-called 'materialists'.The political importance of this (which is why it's so important that comrades not so interested in physics or maths must also take some interest in the discussion) is that if 'Truth' isn't a social creation, but is the product of an elite, and it's a product that cannot be voted on (so we must take the word of an elite and cannot criticise or remove that elite), then…… workers cannot democratically control the means of production.We would remain the passive recipients of 'Scientific Knowledge', who would only control the production of 'factory widgets', but not the production of our universities and our research.An elite would remain in command of social thinking.This, politically, is Leninism. That's why Lenin was a 'materialist'.Fleck's work is a good starting point for workers to begin to challenge the ideological hegemony of bourgeois science, and thus Engels' 'materialism'.The only way forward for us is to argue for 'democratic science', which clearly includes 'democratic physics' and 'democratic maths'. This can't be done if one holds to 'materialism', because 'matter', to the exclusion of 'social consciousness', is the determinant of 'Truth', and the elite claim to know what 'matter' says, and that this can't be voted upon by the majority.

[Author]

Posts