[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Welcome back Lbird.

I'm touched, and starting to weep, at the effusive nature of all the welcomes!One can only hope that such support is repeated in words when I actually start to post the bad news about maths.'Bad news' for the Leninist Truth-Holders of the Engelsian Materialist religious sect and their god 'Matter', that is!

[LBird]

northern light wrote:

Welcome back LBIRD, (I'll try and sneak this one past the Mod. ….. well it is the season of good will)I like the well timed flamboyant entrance, a bit like this, I feel.https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=rick%20mayall's%20flashman

Well, I hear Lord Flashheart is worshipping me, now!Thanks for the welcome.As for 'flamboyance', whatever do you mean? I'm giving the Puritan, staid, honest-to-goodness, objective truth, just like the 'materialists' and their "God's Truth", that matter itself whispers into the ears of the believers alone.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

2+2=5

Nah, 2+2=11,alan!In base 3.One has to know the 'hard core' assumptions one is making, whether in physics, maths or politics.2+2=4 ONLY IF ONE ASSUMES BASE 10.Similarly, a rock is 'hard' only if one assumes human consciousness. The judgment of 'hard' requires both external world and mind, and the method of theory and practice.Ahhh… it's so good to be back!

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

DJP wrote:

[The most popular forum thread was the "Science for Communists" one but that's at around 100 in the charts…

What happened to him, anyway?

I was banned, for the second time.That's right, readers, the originator and the most compelling, erudite and understandable contributor, to the most popular thread of 2014 on the SPGB forums, was banned.Not a great advert for the liberties we can expect under 'SPGB Socialism', I fear.But…. I'm back!However, I suppose it will be "three strikes and out", eh?I was thinking of starting a new thread, entitled 'Mathematics for Communists', with the same critical approach that the SPGB apparently disapproves of, but I can hear the howls even now, from the 'objectivists' of 'mudpie-ism' ('Engelsian Materialism', for the uninitiated in these arcane debates):"He's ruined physics for us, and now he intends to slur mathematics, too! He's bound to say mathematics should be under the  democratic control of the workers, too, the bastard! Is there no end to this betraying of the objective world, the static reality, the uncriticisable nature of the physical world?"Well, all I can say, comrades, is:"Not according to the relativist Karl Marx, and his theories about 'Modes of Production', that our human understanding of both physics and mathematics (amongst everything else) is related to our social production".Shall we go for 'third strike maths', comrades?

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Lbird,I dropped rock because we're discussing value, and rocks aren't (generally) the produce of human labour.

YMS, what bit don't you understand about what you wrote:

YMS, post #123, wrote:

LBird,Ah, I see. Considering this thread is about explaining value, I read your question in that light, rather than as a general question about epistemology.

'Epistemology' is about understanding (and thus closely related to explaining).So, explaining 'rocks', 'volcanoes', 'elements', 'light', 'bricks', 'walls', castle, 'watches', 'cars' AND VALUE is a 'product of human labour'.You're a 'materialist', and 'materialists' claim that human don't have to 'produce knowledge' of 'material things' (like your opinion about 'rocks'), because 'matter', for the 'materialists', talks to humans.This is why you're forced to remove a natural product from a list that includes everything that can be explained by the same method as 'value'.'Knowledge' is a 'human, social, product' and that applies as much to nature (eg. rocks) as to society (eg. value).Your problem, as for all the 'materialists', is that you can't openly say that you employ 'ideas' to understand 'matter', because then I'll simply ask 'which ideology do you use to understand rocks?', and you won't (and can't) answer, because to a materialist any questions about 'ideas/ideology' is 'idealism'.The materialists got this nonsense from Engels, not Marx.For Marx, 'material' meant 'social production' (and not 'matter'), and 'social production' requires both 'theory and practice', and thus the production of knowledge (whether of rocks or of value) is social, historical and ideological.I've said this numerous times to you, personally, YMS (never mind to others), but you keep insisting that a 'rock' tells you what it is, by individual, biological  senses.One can't tell 'what a rock is' without an ideological theory.The ideology you employ is 'bourgeois individualism', and so you won't have a Communist telling you that a vote is required with your comrades for you to determine what a rock is.You 'know' what a rock 'is', and you won't let democracy deprive you of your 'experience' of your world. Never mind Einstein.Can't you leave me alone, now, YMS?I feel like Sisyphus, and you're my 'rock'.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

What soylent green says about a car, a watch, a brick, is that they are parts of a human, created by human labour, and twhen you enter into any relationship with that object, you are entering into a transferred human relationship with the human beings who brought it before you (even if they are now present).

Good luck with that explanation, YMS.I see that you removed 'rock' from the list, but I'm past caring.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

And I answered that because soylent green revealed …

How the hell does 'soylent green' explain a rock? Watch? Brick? Car? Castle?

YMS wrote:

AFAICS you asked "what is the underlying philosophical basis of 'soylent green', in your view, that allows us to explain day-to-day, simple experiences of workers, in the first place, as an inital step, and thus provide a basis for an explanation of something much less obvious, that is, the concept of 'value'?"

[my bold]YMS, just give up, will you? You stick to 'soylent green', and I'll forget about the SPGB.Deal, eh?

[LBird]

All you've got to do is scroll up half-a-dozen posts so, no, I wouldn't care to 'reformulate' it.Don't bother, I've been down this road before.Seriously, forget it, YMS.

[LBird]

You still haven't answered my question.Forget it.

[LBird]

J Surman wrote:

ALB wrote:

I don't think that 'we' (if you mean 'Communists') do 'this' at all.I tried many times to give explanations in simple terms of difficult subjects, but there seems to be a preference for obscurity and dogma.I can't give any more detail, because I keep getting warnings for mentioning anything that others don't like hearing about.I think a 'serious idea' would be to take our heads out of the sand. I'm using 'sand' because the other term is forbidden.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

In fact what idealists such as LBird don't understand is that class consciousness is one of the material conditions necessary for socialism

In fact what materialists such as Vin don't understand is that class consciousness is one of the ideal conditions necessary for socialism 

[LBird]

First warning:  1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts. 

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

What? Y'mean the 'materialists' are wrong, and the 'material conditions' don't talk to humans? And that the 'practice' of everyday experience doesn't produce a 'theory' of revolution, so that 'matter' and its 'material usage' doesn't generate 'class consciousness'?

Believe it or not LBird but, unlike your idealism, materialism includes human beings in 'material conditions' and yes it includes ideasIn fact it is the inculsion of ideas as 'material' that actually defines 'materialism'  

Yeah, I know, Vin. You, DJP ,YMS and ALB (to name but a few) keep telling me that.I'm reading what you're all saying, and listening.But I just have one problem, and I'm loath to start on the merry-go-round, yet again… but…Why call it 'materialism', when simply everybody agrees with Marx and me that it includes 'ideas'?The only person who seemed to think (and then only at points, which makes him unreliably and confusing) that 'matter' existed for humans outside of their 'ideas' of it, was Engels. Everyone else thinks that both object and subject are both required for knowledge.Since, for Marx, 'material' meant social production (ideas and stuff worked on), and his method was 'theory and practice', and everybody precedes 'materialism' with some prefix or other (historical, dialectical), why not just have done with it, and use a term which stresses both 'being and consciousness', rather than one which stresses only one aspect (ie. the 'material')?Simple question, comrades – why not call it 'idealism-materialism', if it includes 'ideas' and 'material'?If, on the other hand, it's acceptable to stress only one aspect of both ideas and material (and both are required for social production), why not call it 'idealism', and just say:

Alter-ego-Vin wrote:

In fact it is the inclusion of matter as 'ideal' that actually defines 'idealism'

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

This article from the Socialist Standard in 1933 should amuse you:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1930s/1933/no-342-february-1933/how-make-socialists-lenin%E2%80%99s-viewAnother recruit to your "idealism-materialism"

Brilliant!Did the SPGB eventually recruit him?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Soylent green is people.

And…?I didn't ask what the film is about, but what is the underlying philosophical basis of 'soylent green', in your view, that allows us to explain day-to-day, simple experiences of workers, in the first place, as an inital step, and thus provide a basis for an explanation of something much less obvious, that is, the concept of 'value'?After all, if you think that the analogy of 'soylent green' does this better than 'social acid' and its basis in Critical Realism and wider explanations for workers, then you should be able to say why you think that.Otherwise, it seems to be just a mindless resistance to anything that I propose.God forbid that we'll see any of that, here.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Shorter version.Value is soylent green.  Much better analogy.

No problem, YMS.Just explain the bit how 'soylent green' explains why cars, walls, watches, water come about, and how that simple understanding of things in workers' day-to-day lives helps to then provide an introduction to understanding 'value'.Since, 'value as social acid' uses the concepts of Critical Realism, which is able to explain all the things that I've mentioned, what is the underlying explanation of 'soylent green' that is also applicable to cars, walls, value, etc.?

[Author]

Posts