LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
ALB wrote:
“By coincidence in the course of scanning articles from the Socialist Standards of the 1920s I have just done one from August 1925 in which an opponent makes this criticism:“Fifty years ago — which was an age of triumphant Science — it was widely believed that in matter and motion there had at last been placed in man’s hands the key to the interpretation of the universe and all its contents, including man himself. Fifty years ago that was ; but time in the interval has wrought many changes. Science, now wiser and less confident, recognises its limitations and confines itself to a description of things as they appear to us, being silent about them as in their ultimate nature they are. Materialism is no longer regarded as a truth of science.
Neither is materialism an established truth of philosophy. It amounts to no more than a philosophic speculation; and it is endorsed to-day by few thinkers of repute. The main reason for this, briefly expressed, is that the theory cannot reach its starting-point. Thought itself bars the way. You can never get to a position beyond thought where you are face to face with matter per se — where you have matter pure and simple — and then show thought evolving from it. Matter in its primordial form — the atom with its electrons — is always matter with an element of thought already present in it. Anyone who grasps the significance of this statement will at once see how precarious a basis materialism is for Socialism.””
It seems, ALB, that the Socialist Standard chose its ‘opponents’ well. ‘Materialism’ is a basis for Leninism, not Socialism.
robbo203 wrote: “…LBird, Who socially produces scientific theories has ZERO RELEVANCE …”
Neither I nor Marx share that political opinion, robbo.
The ‘social producer’ is the most fundamental of Marx’s concepts, and so is found in all his notions of ‘mode of production’, ‘forces of production’, ‘relations of production’, ‘associated producers’, ‘exploitation’, ‘classes’.
It’s the starting point for discussing Marx.
robbo203 wrote (yet again): “It is perfectly OK in itself to ask ‘who’ socially produces scientific theories and ‘how’ do they do so …”
So (yet again), “‘who’ socially produces scientific theories and ‘how’ do they do so?“.
Once we have the answer to this ‘perfectly OK’ question (the ‘who’ and the ‘how’), discussion about the ‘why’ (and the ‘whether’ and ‘should’) will progress rapidly.
In fact, the ‘who and how’ answer will determine the ‘why/whether/should’ answer.
robbo203 wrote: “It is perfectly OK in itself to ask ‘who’ socially produces scientific theories and ‘how’ do they do so…”
I agree, robbo, perfectly OK.
So, ” ‘who’ socially produces scientific theories and ‘how’ do they do so?“
robbo203 wrote: “It is not acceptable to give as answer the fact that he considered (as do I) scientific theories to be “social products”, for reasons that have been explained ad nauseum.”
“It is not acceptable” is a political opinion, robbo, that I do not share.
I think ‘it is entirely acceptable’, and since we agree that ‘scientific theories’ are ‘social products’, to ask ‘who’ socially produces, and ‘how’ do they do so.
And then further, once we have an answer to ‘who’ and ‘how’, to discuss the ‘social practice’ arising from these answers. This follows Marx’s method of ‘theory and practice’ – the ‘theory’ consciously determines the ‘practice’, and for a Marxist and democratic socialist they can’t be separated, as you wish to do.
You’ve never answered this political question once, never mind ‘ad nauseum’.
robbo203 wrote: “We should engage with you, according to you,but do you ever reciprocate by engaging with us??? For example, by answering a simple straightforward question which has been asked of you over and over again such as how in practical terms… ”
This is why you’re refusing to engage, robbo.
I’m trying to discuss Marx’s politics and philosophy, about our social production… whereas you want to ask ‘simple, straightforward questions’ which will supposedly require ‘simple, straightforward’ answers.
Whilst I’ve tried as much as I can to use analogies, examples, and references for you to explore which deal in more depth with my simplifications, we’re trying to discuss politics and philosophy, especially Marx’s, which are far beyond the ‘simple and straightforward’.
It’s like trying to discuss Marx’s ideas about the Labour Theory of Value, and its implications for Capitalist social relations, and exploitation, and classes, with someone who insists on ‘simple and straightforward’ answers to their questions based upon their individual opinion about ‘what is valuable’.
It can’t be done, robbo. Whilst the questioner wants to ask their own questions without questioning the basis of their questions, then they’ll continue to get their own answers, to their own satisfaction. Which is all fine for them, but they’ll never get to understand the socio-historical, politico-philosophical context of the Theory of Value.
Individualism contains its own answers, mate. As does Marx’s democratic social productionism.
If you’re happy with the ‘simple and straightforward’, many workers are not. I think you’re confusing ‘plain-speaking’ with ‘ignorance’.
robbo203 wrote: “Unlike you I am not a Marx fetishist, I don’t hero worship the man. He wrote a lot of good stuff but he also wrote some crap too”
You really don’t read what I write, robbo, mate!
I’m always criticising Marx – he’s a hopeless writer, who never uses one word where a hundred will do, and is very unclear about what he means, which is why we now have to discuss his works.
If only you and the others would engage with what I write, rather than your own illusions, and hidden ideology.
Perhaps one day…
