LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
John Oswald wrote:I think all this, above, is so much academic-style verbiage. "Idealism-materialism"? "Religious materialists"? Sorry. Not for me.
No problem – at least you're not pretending to be a religious fanatic, like the 'materialists'!
"Unnecessarily full of letters"?Is this a serious response to an epistemological discussion about Marx's views?Well, I'll go with that.'Id-Mat' is shorter than 'materialism' by five characters.John, where are you?
Young Master Smeet wrote:Just a quick aid, Wikipedia is good on this:Quote:Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are the result of material interactions.It's as simple as that. The extension is, then, that ideas, perceptions, concepts, etc. are themselves material, and part of material processes. Thorough materialist monism opposes theoretical dualism that affirms some sort of distinction or opposition between matter and ideas, or, indeed, primacy of one over the other (since they are both the same thing).
But your post itself isn't as simple as that.On the one hand, you argue that 'matter' is 'fundamental'.On the other, you argue that 'ideas' are 'material'.These are contradictory statements of belief.If 'ideas' are 'material', why can't one touch them? If 'material' and 'matter' mean anything, they mean not 'ideal' or 'ideas'.You are merely repeating 19th century dogma, as espoused by Engels (in his nonsensical moments), based on 'materialism' (that he thought Marx agreed with), that 'matter' (or 'being') is fundamental, rather than the 'ideal' (or 'consciousness').If fact, to follow Dietzgen, nature includes both 'material' and 'ideal', matter and ideas, being and consciousness.To say either is fundamental, is to separate the unity of nature.Marx did not regard 'matter' as fundamental. Marx argued for 'material production', by which he meant 'social production'. So when Marx says 'material', he means 'production'.By 'production', Marx means 'theory and practice' by societies.'Theory and practice' requires both 'ideas' (for the 'theory') and a 'material substratum' (Marx's term) which is worked upon to produce the human-natural, both in the 'material' and in the 'ideal'. We require both houses and knowledge. We are both being and consciousness.You, like Vin and all the other Religious Materialists, get your ideas from Engels, and his separation, in Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, where HE identifies 'idealism' as 'bad', and 'materialism' as 'good'.God knows, I've given the quotes enough times to back up all that I'm claiming, but nothing makes any impression on The Faithful.Keep playing with words, YMS, and carry on confusing generations of workers, who, if it is claimed 'ideas and matter are the same thing', will, quite rightly, regard you as an idiot, and avoid you like the plague.At the very least, they'll ask, as do I, why, if 'ideas and matter and the same thing', why not call this belief 'idealism-materialism'?It's because you say one thing openly, that 'matter and ideas are the same', but hiddenly you don't believe this, you believe in 'matter' or 'the physical' and thus won't agree to the use of 'Idealism-Materialism' for Marx's ideas.Your beliefs are not only contradictory to anyone who asks, but they are nothing to do with Marx's beliefs.Do you want the quotes, yet again?
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:Anyway, we've been here before, so often, why not just leave this discussion to John, if he's interested? You're not forced to read it.I feel it my job, particularily on my party's website, to challenge ignorance and distortion. You on the other hand clearly believe that you should be allowed to pedal your rubbish and abuse unchallenged. That sort of enviorenment would not be conducive to enlightenment.
Another insulting post from the benighted religious adherents of 'materialism'.The 'rubbish' that I'm 'pedalling' is the same 'rubbish' that Marx 'pedalled'. But you wouldn't know that, would you, Vin, because you take your faith from Engels, at his most nonsensical.As to 'enlightenment', your sort of 'materialist' keeps telling us that 'matter' should have the final say (and you got this from bourgeois science at its height, in 19th century positivism) in what 'truth' is, rather than a democratic vote by workers. You genuinely believe that the rocks talk to you (well, not you personally, because you think that you don't have the personal capacity in conjunction with other workers, plus you have cloth ears), but talk to your heroes, the bourgeois scientists, the physicists who Einstein disproved.In fact, many physicists today reject the priestly role that the 'materialists' allocate to them. Just the other day, Brain Cox said as much in The Guardian. I can't be arsed giving you a link, because I know you never read anything that you're advised to read, because you have 'faith in matter', the unchallengable source of Truth for the Religious Materialists, who follow the teachings of the high priest Engels.Why don't you just leave one thread for a discussion for those who are genuinely concerned to see Workers' Power, and not your lickspittle crawling to the bourgeois experts?You won't have democracy in truth production, will you, Vin, because you think an elite has a politically neutral method to ascertain The Truth?
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:For starters, then, you do know that Marx wasn't a 'materialist'?If the term 'materialism' is applied to Marx's thought, then it's entirely correct to add 'idealism', too.In that sense, Marx was an 'idealist-materialist'.In all seriousness surely you've got to ask yourself why no-one else has said that, ever…
In all seriousness, it can't be your ignorance of the numerous thinkers who have said just that, because I've given you endless references to follow up, so I've got to assume that your religious devotion to 'matter' blinds you to the bleedin' obvious.Why you won't read Marx, where he says that he took from both idealism and materialism, and where he says that for him 'materialism' is human production, just baffles me.And why you won't accept that it was Engels who went on about 'matter in motion', and not Marx, leaves me convinced that you have a religious devotion to 'matter'. I can't shake your faith. Nothing I explain, no quote from Marx, no passages from Dietzgen or Pannekoek, nothing makes any impression.Anyway, we've been here before, so often, why not just leave this discussion to John, if he's interested? You're not forced to read it.
John Oswald wrote:I am opening this topic for discussion on materialism, whether mechanist or vitalist, and on the materialists, whether Marxist or prior to Marx. This would include the Enlightenment materialist writers, aspects of materialist philosophy, and even the ancients, if so wished.I've just had my temporary ban lifted, John, and so I am now able to participate in your discussion about Marx and 'materialism'.For starters, then, you do know that Marx wasn't a 'materialist'?If the term 'materialism' is applied to Marx's thought, then it's entirely correct to add 'idealism', too.In that sense, Marx was an 'idealist-materialist'.That's why those who followed after Marx, including Engels, always prefixed their name for Marx's thought with an additional word which dealt with 'ideas' and 'consciousness'. So we have 'Historical Materialism' and 'Dialectical Materialism'.Unfortunately, since Engels erroneously proclaimed that the religious world of good and evil was applicable to 'Marxist' thought, and he deemed 'materialism' as 'good', and 'idealism' as 'evil', ever since the term 'idealism' has been avoided by the religious devotees of Engels.The religious haven't read Engels, of course; as good 'believers', they just take what they've been told by earlier generations of believers as 'The Truth'.The religious 'Engelsians' also avoid reading Marx's works, because any familiarity with Marx's works, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, Theses on Feuerbach, German Ideology, Grundrisse, or even Capital, makes it obvious that Marx was an Idealist-Materialist.Are you interested in a discussion, John? If not, just ignore this post.
Brian wrote:Nevertheless, all our behaviour is a product and a reflection of our environmental conditioning.No, "all our behaviour is a product and a reflection of our social conditioning."The use of the term 'environmental' suggests that well-worn word 'material'.Our behaviour is not the product of 'material' conditions.If by 'material' is meant "ideas and nature", then it should be clearly said that one means 'ideal-material', and not 'material'.That is, 'social conditioning' involves 'ideas and nature', not simply physical environment, which is the infamous 'material conditions' that Engels wrote about, as opposed to Marx's 'material production', involving human ideas and natural environment.'Environmental conditioning' is a conservative concept, and is of no use to Communists who wish, through theory and practice, to transform our world.
Hud955 wrote:LB. It is precisely because I have an interest in philosophy that I have no interest in your dogmatism.You just can't help yourself, can you, Hud?You feign an 'interest', but won't discuss it.But, in reality, because you can't discuss it, through ignorance, you feel compelled to denigrate my attempts to discuss your philosophy as 'dogmatism'.Why not just say that you don't understand what I'm saying, and so don't feel able to discuss it, rather than pretend to 'have an interest' in your own 'philosophy', of which any criticisms are offhandedly dismissed as 'dogmatism'?Who are you fooling? Not me.
Hud955 wrote:I note LB, that you have once again attempted to disguise your evasion by launching an attack. I don't buy it.My earlier post was to actually support your position, with one small caveat. No 'attack' of any sort. Simply a disagreement about your underlying philosophy.You responded, not by either ignoring something that you consider unimportant (which is fair enough) and simply noting my support of the bulk of your post, nor by giving a considered response to my minor disagreement, but by attacking me for 'dogmatism'.If you're not interested in your own philosophy, I can't make you so.But, if so, you can't just call someone 'dogmatic' because of your lack of interest in philosophy.
Hud955 wrote:…the niceties of your brand of philosophical dogmatism are not. The fact is that these issues will be resolved by the working class on practical grounds and with reference to current circumstances when the time comes to implement them…Why not be open about your own brand of philosophical dogmatism, Hud?'Practical grounds' is a philosophical dogma.The fact that you won't acknowledge that, is neither here nor there.Since you're ignorant of the basis to your own views, you find it easy to condemn comrades who do know about your hidden brand of philosophical dogmatism.If you won't discuss your dogma, it's to your loss, and continued ignorance.If you don't wish to discuss, just don't anwer.But if you wish to think that you are exposing my 'dogma' alone, I'll keep putting you right.I'm open about my 'dogma', whereas you hide yours.
Hud955 wrote:There is no such thing as purely material action for human beings. All human action has ideal content. That can be assumed.Unfortunately, we've been bamboozled since Engels by the term 'material'. Most people actually think that the term means 'material', rather than, as you say, ideal-material. The same has happened to 'concrete'. Most people think it actually means 'physical', rather than ideas and material. So, it's not 'assumed' at all. We need to spell it out, and rescue Marx's ideas about 'material production' meaning human ideas interacting with the 'material substratum', to produce our world, both ideal and material.
Hud955 wrote:I agree with the point, LB. But it is a pedantic one.No, not pedantic, but philosophically vital, one still not understood by even socialists, never mind the mass of workers.
Hud955 wrote:Our case is founded on a class interest…Who or what determines 'class interest'?The Leninists claim that 'matter' does, that they can tell what our 'material interests' are.We, following the point you made above, regarding our class interest as ideal-material, is based upon actively created concepts and practice, rather than passively accepted from the 'material'.
Hud955 wrote:There are no 'proper' or 'correct' positions for the working class – or indeed, for anyone who refuses to acknowledge the claims of authority.But that's an anarchist or individualist belief, Hud.Our authority is class authority, determined by the democratic proletariat.Truth is elected, either by us as a whole, or by the bourgeoisie as an elite. Though, they pretend to be told by 'matter' itself. That's where the Leninists get their views from.
I agree with what you've said, Hud, with the exception of your last sentence:
Hud955 wrote:To my understanding, the primary act of revolution lies in the material action of the working class and not in taking control of a gassing shop.[my bold]The proper formulation is "the primary act of revolution lies in the ideal-material action of the working class ". That is, in theory and practice, not in practice alone. Practice and the material do not produce 'ideas'. Only humans produce ideas, and the working class must produce its ideas prior to action.Marx was an 'idealist-materialist', not a 'materialist'. He uses the word 'material' to mean 'human production', which clearly includes both 'ideas' and a 'material substratum'.
Brian wrote:LBird wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:"I think you'd be better 'citing' me, alan."Maybe i would be better with Dietzgen quote" If a worker wants to take part in the self-emancipation of his class , the basic requirement is that he should cease allowing others to teach him and should set about teaching himself." – Joseph DietzgenSpot on, alan!As far as workers are concerned, replace 'his', 'he', 'him' and 'himself' with 'their', 'they', 'them' and 'themselves'." If workers want to take part in the self-emancipation of their class , the basic requirement is that they should cease allowing others to teach them and should set about teaching themselves." We're the only authority that we should recognise. Not priests, physicists or cadre.
I just could not let this one past. "There are times when even the educator needs educating" Marx. Which with all due respect illustrates its a two way affair. Always doubt to avoid the dogma.
[my bold]That's not what Marx said, Brian.He didn't say 'there are times'.He said 'essential', which means 'always'.
Marx wrote:…it is essential to educate the educator…For us, this can only mean proletarian self-education, and the removal of 'educators' as an elite. The latter is the only way society could be divided into two parts, one superior to the other.
alanjjohnstone wrote:"I think you'd be better 'citing' me, alan."Maybe i would be better with Dietzgen quote" If a worker wants to take part in the self-emancipation of his class , the basic requirement is that he should cease allowing others to teach him and should set about teaching himself." – Joseph DietzgenSpot on, alan!As far as workers are concerned, replace 'his', 'he', 'him' and 'himself' with 'their', 'they', 'them' and 'themselves'." If workers want to take part in the self-emancipation of their class , the basic requirement is that they should cease allowing others to teach them and should set about teaching themselves." We're the only authority that we should recognise. Not priests, physicists or cadre.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Lbird, i have to cite Luxemburg…So, whatever happened to Red Rosa, and the so-called "Workers' Councils" in 'revolutionary' Germany of her period?
LBird wrote:"… 'Assuming responsibility' before we have our democratic ideas in place will lead, as usual, to workers' tears…"1919 Germany. "Workers' Councils" (supposedly); no 'democratic ideas' within the proletariat concerning physics; someone else (The SPD) provides the 'ideas'; … not just workers' tears, but Rosa's murder, amongst many others.I think you'd be better 'citing' me, alan.
