LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote: “He was a materialist in the sense that he thought that (the rest of) Nature was just as real as Man”
No, ALB, it clearly says ‘nature for man’, not ‘the rest of nature (without man)’
You’ll know that an ‘object’ only has ‘existence’ for a subject.
And elsewhere, Marx makes this clear with his concept of Entausserung, which is ‘externalisation’.
Man’s externalisation is ‘nature for man’.
Humanity is the creator of any ‘nature’ that they ‘know’. If they can’t know it (ie. the rest of nature not known), Marx says it’s ‘nothing for us’.
Wez wrote: “The Idealist Manifesto right there – Marx would have laughed at such absurdity.”
It’s Marx that ALB quoted, Wez.
Marx specifically argues against idealism, so it can’t be an ‘Idealist Manifesto’.
Same with your ‘Materialist Manifesto’.
Marxs argues for social production (an ‘Idealist-Materialist Manifesto’). Read his words. ALB is helping you.
I agree entirely with your Marx quote, ALB.
Marx employs the concept “nature for man”, thus he specifies his subject ‘[hu]man[ity]’ and its object ‘nature’. The active, conscious subject creates its object for itself. There is no ‘nature’ outside of human conscious activity, outside of humanity’s social production.
“…it starts from the theoretical and practical sense-perception of man and nature as the true reality”
‘True reality’ requires the theory and practice of [hu]man[ity]. ‘[Hu]man[ity] and nature’ are inextricably linked.
‘Nature’ is not sitting ‘out there’, awaiting its passive discovery. There is no ‘true reality’ prior to our ‘true reality’. Truth is socially produced.
There is no ‘god’ doing this creation for us. There is no ‘matter’ doing this creation for us. Humanity is its own creator. We create ‘nature for us’.
Matthew Culbert wrote: “An advanced , post-capitalist society, run by us all, locally, regionally, globally, in democratic administration over resources and not a government over people.”
But not ‘truth’, eh?
Who, then, is going to ‘run’ that, Matt?
Matthew Culbert wrote: “I am just opposed to the stupidity of your claim.”
Materialists are always opposed to ‘the stupidity of’ democratic claims, Matt. Marx had your number!
You and your elite with a special consciousness are keeping hold of the social production of truth, aren’t you? Lenin and his cadre had the same idea.
Ohh, no, sorry, the ‘material conditions’ made the Bolsheviks do it! Pull the other one, Vladimir Ilyich!
Matthew Culbert wrote: “Where anywhere does Marx say we will be voting on the ‘truth’ of scientific theories.”
Marx – democrat, social production, err, no you’re right, Matt, anything not specifically mentioned by Marx, like ‘Brown shoes will be allowed’ means that ‘Brown shoes will not be allowed’.
Where do you think ‘truth’ and ‘scientific theories’ come from – clever individuals? God? Matter? Reality? Nature?
And why are you so opposed to them being socially produced by democratic methods? Do you assume that the masses can’t do physics?Materialists, eh? Marx had your number in the 1840s.
alanjjohntone wrote: “Karl Korsch had something of interest to say
Marxist ‘theory’ does not strive to achieve objective knowledge of reality out of an independent, theoretical interest. It is driven to acquire this knowledge by the practical necessities of struggle, and can neglect it only by running the heavy risk of failing to achieve its goal, at the price of the defeat and eclipse of the proletarian movement which it represents.”
Doesn’t ‘democracy’ form part of Marx’s ‘practical necessities of struggle’?
If so, the rest of the quote tells you where you and the SPGB are heading – ‘defeat and eclipse’.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “In my own words, if it doesn’t contribute to furthering the movement towards socialism, i don’t really give a damn…”
But ‘materialism’ doesn’t, as we’ve read here, ‘doesn’t contribute to furthering the movement towards socialism’, if that ‘socialism’ is a ‘democratic socialism’, because ‘materialism’ doesn’t regard ‘the active side’ as humanity (as Marx said), but it regards ‘matter’ as the active side, and so does not require human democracy, because ‘matter’ will bring socialism of its own accord (the mythical ‘material conditions’).
But… you do give a damn, don’t you, about ‘materialism’, because you’ve been brainwashed into thinking that the only alternative to ‘materialism’ is ‘idealism’, that is, religion and divine worship.
The third alternative, Marx’s alternative, is ‘social productionism’, which requires human conscious activity to produce its world. This is a reconciliation of both idealism and materialism (as Marx himself wrote). Since this ‘furthers the movement toward socialism’, because it puts mass human theory and practice by democratic means at the centre of building socialism, your ‘not giving a damn’ prevents you from participating actively, and leads you to wait for, not Godot, but ‘the material’.
Keep reading Korsch, alan, but from a Marxist perspective, not from a materialist one. It’s your choice, if you can begin to ‘give a damn’.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “What Marx never did was to permit his philosophical understanding to stand in the way of actual political activity. He left all that musings behind with Hegel and Feuerbach. ”
This is another ‘materialist’ myth, alan.
Political theory (or, philosophy) is the basis of political activity.
Surely, even given your often-expressed hostility to ‘philosophy’, you’ve heard of ‘theory and practice’, and Marx’s insistence of it?
‘Materialism’ pretends that it isn’t a ‘theory’, and is simply a ‘practice’. And then, after the ‘actual activity’, supposedly the ‘theory’ emerges.
Once again, alan, you should realise that, whilst you assume that you have no ‘philosophy’, the one that you do actually have remains, for you, unconscious and unexamined.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “LBird now uses Marx’s view on materialism as reason not to participate in any form of socialist action…”
Well, given that there isn’t any ‘socialist action’ without ‘socialist theory’, the refusal of the SPGB membership here to discuss ‘socialist theory’ can only mean that they are not participating in any ‘socialist action’, so it seems that I’m the only one even trying to build a socialist theory and practice based upon Marx’s philosophical insights.
The starting point, alan, is to realise that Marx wasn’t a ‘materialist’, and said so. He said he was a ‘new materialist’ – and the ‘materialists’ simply ignore the prefix ‘new’, rather than discussing what was ‘new’ (and indeed, revolutionary) about this. They returned to pre-Marxian, 18th century, passive humanity, ‘materialism’, which worships ‘matter’ as ‘the active side’.
Matthew Culbert wrote: “What are you on about? Stuff your active subject philosophical abstractions. All wealth comes from labour applied to nature.”
According to Marx’s philosophy, humans create their ‘nature’. It’s a ‘nature-for-us’. Our social product.
You appear to think ‘nature’ is just sitting there. Marx is a mystery to you, Matthew.
robbo203 wrote: “Since you are clearly not interested in engaging with the question of what are the practical limits of democratic decision-making, I am not going to waste my time any longer trying in vain to engage you in constructive debate on this question. It is obviously pointless.”
Surely it’s obvious by now, robbo, that I want to engage with the question of by who and how are the practical limits set, which will then lead to what they are.
You’re wasting your time trying to avoid that question. It is pointless. ‘Practical limits’ don’t just appear, without human involvement, as you seem to think.
Matthew Culbert wrote: “[LBird wrote:] Neither follows Marx, who argued that ‘humanity’ is the active subject.
Rubbish.”
I’m afraid it’s true, Matthew.
Who do you think labours in any mode of production? The fairies?
If Marx didn’t think humanity was the active subject, who (or what) did he think was?
robbo203 wrote: “All I have pointed out is the fact that something is a “social product” does not in itself make it a suitable candidate for being subject to a democratic vote.” [my bold]
Did this ‘in itself’ tell you that, or are you keeping quiet about where you got the concept of ‘in-itself’ from?
Try looking at Kant, robbo.
robbo203 wrote: “Whatever the case…”
But it’s your ‘case’ that I’m trying to get you to state, so you can’t avoid the reasonable question, as you have agreed it is, of whose ‘case’ it is, and how they/you/it produced it, by stating ‘whatever’.
You apparently want Marxists and democrats to simply and uncritically accept your ‘case’ as a ‘fact’, which just happens to be there, and doesn’t have any social producer.
Matthew Culbert wrote: “It is certainly a good article and reply.
It’s an interesting historical article, only marred by the conclusion.
One party, Archie McArthur, is an idealist, who argues that the ‘divine’ is the active subject.
The other party, GILMAC, is a materialist, who argues that the ‘material’ is the active subject.
Neither follows Marx, who argued that ‘humanity’ is the active subject.
