[LBird]

YMS wrote:

The twin objective facts of the necessity of winning working class votes to rule, and the interests of the working class, have forced the Tories into this.

You love pretending that 'objective facts' force humans to obey them, don't you, YMS? It's another facet of your unshakeable faith in Religious Materialism.The ruling class have themselves actively chosen at this point, firstly, not to install a dictatorship, and secondly that their interests in producing further profits for themselves are best served by these policies.Your own creative selection of 'facts', based upon your own unconscious ideology of science, are bugger all to do with 'objectivity'.Whilst the working class is continually bamboozled by the 19th century thinking of supposed 'socialists' and their Religious Materialism, they'll remain under the domination of the bourgeoisie.Even bourgeois philosophers have moved beyond that guff, the nonsense that Engels fell for, and which forms the basis of Leninism.But… as long as 'socialists' claim to have access to 'objective facts', the 'Material Truth', the lord god 'Matter', they cannot provide any guidance for workers, who require a critical and creative theory, which can provide them with an ideology to help change the world we presently live in.

[LBird]

"Relieving the debt burden on the poor" – a strategy that always regenerates and consolidates private productive property ownership, no matter what its proponents pretend.Seisachtheia, the ancient Athenian attempt:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeisachtheiaYou'd think that we'd have learnt something, since 600 years before Christ, eh?

[LBird]

Correction: it's the 4th July.2pm-5pm, apparently.http://www.kurdslist.org/events/589-the-revolution-in-rojava-northern-syria-and-the-kurds

[LBird]

'Acceptance' is a decision, YMS. At the very least, the decision to use passive fatalism as a 'measure'. Another example of 'Religious Materialism'.Christ, I'm having to teach English, now.We're a million miles away from Marx's social activity, theory and practice, and the democratic control of production.Are you a member of the SPGB, YMS?If you are, and you seem to be the most keen to actually, genuinely, engage, I'll stop posting on this site.I'm sure most other readers are sick of me saying the same thing and then the Religious Materialists ignoring me; and I'm sick of being banned, for trying to get the ideas of Marx better known.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Quote:

someone has to make a decision as to the truth or otherwise of a production process

(my bold) this proposition is false, no-one has to make any such determination, all that is necessry is to accept the veracity of a proposition before initiating action.

1. Society has to make decisions all the time about 'truth'.2. Your method 'veracity then action' is not Marx's method.Marx's method is 'theory and practice'. Veracity is a product of human production. Humans determine veracity.Theory-practice-product-decision. 'Veracity' is a product of this method. This is Marx's (and we now know, science's) method.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Quote:

And who argues that 'tides are turned by voting'? Talk about straw men! In fact, it just shows me that you haven't got a clue what this discussion is about, but just have a vague idea that the 'mob' are going to destroy science, if that lot are allowed to discuss and vote upon knowledge!

Last I checked, wearily, you maintain that truth is subject to consensus of the people, and by voting we can make something true.  Now, we can, according to that proposition, make it tue that high tide is at noon not midnight.Consciousness is just a part of stuff, not distinct from, apart from, a pale reflection of, but an integral part of stuff.  All thought is comes from stuff doing stuff.

You haven't 'checked' anything, YMS, 'wearily' or otherwise.You keep saying 'by voting we can make something true'.I, like Marx, am saying that 'theory and practice' produces 'knowledge', and that the judgement of that 'product' being 'true' can only lie in a democratic vote. Science often produces 'untruths', and someone has to make a decision as to the truth or otherwise of a production process ('stuff' produced by theory and practice, whether houses or knowledge).So, for us, 'making' is an active social process, controlled by the producers.For you, it is passively observing 'facts', which shall not be gainsaid. By an elite. Marx clearly warned of the dangers of materialism. It produces a two-tier society, the smaller one which 'educates' the other larger tier.As for your 'stuff' explanation, …

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

And Stuff is shorter yet: however, I am convinced that stuff existed before consciousness, and the world is not a dream of God, and thought alone does not change the world.  No amount of voting can change the timing of the tides: although ideas, like the Swansea tidal barrage can change them when turned into action.

Once again, we go through the argument that no-one argues that 'stuff' didn't exist before consciousness. But I know you don't read what I write, so it comes as no surprise whatsoever that you're merely repeating yourself in ignorance.The problem is, the relation between 'stuff' and 'consciousness', once 'consciousness' has emerged from 'stuff'.No one argues that 'the world is a dream of God', or that 'thought alone changes the world'.You must have heard of Marx, and his ideas about 'theory and practice'? No? I'm surprised, because only someone who hadn't heard of Marx would think that any socialists think that 'thought alone' will do anything.And who argues that 'tides are turned by voting'? Talk about straw men! In fact, it just shows me that you haven't got a clue what this discussion is about, but just have a vague idea that the 'mob' are going to destroy science, if that lot are allowed to discuss and vote upon knowledge!'Stuff' is your God, YMS. It's been pointed out many times by philosophers that 'materialists' of necessity must introduce a god into their thought, because they won't have human consciousness playing any part, and certainly won't have a democratic consciousness involved.Religious Materialism – Marx would be shocked at where his supposed follower have ended up. But, then again, perhaps not, given his famous rebuttal to the French 'materialists'… "All I know is that I am not a 'Marxist'!"

[LBird]

I'm slow on the uptake, YMS!Why not call your belief 'idealism', rather than 'materialism', if you really believe ideas and matter have the same value? 'Idealism' is shorter than 'Materialism'.I know you won't, because you're kidding both us and yourself about ideas and matter, aren't you?You believe in 'matter', don't you? And you believe that it speaks to physicists, too, which is why you won't have a democratic vote about 'Truth'.You are an elitist, both in epistemology and in politics.

[LBird]

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'!

[LBird]

"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?

[LBird]

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?

[LBird]

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?

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[Author]

Posts