LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:…I thought I heard him say at one point that only the physical forms part of "concrete reality". But isn't thisbegging the question since "concrete" and "physical" mean more or less the same?
It's just playing with words, to avoid the point that Dietzgen, amongst others (and agreed with by Critical Realists), that the 'ideal' and the 'material' are the same 'stuff'.Unfortunately, those comrades who follow Engels intepret 'material' to mean 'concrete' or 'physical' or 'reality' or 'object'. This is why the Leninists/Trotskyists are always going on about the 'concrete'.Those who follow Marx interpret Marx's 'material' to mean 'real', and 'real' is both 'ideal' and 'material'. This interpretation of Marx's use of 'material' to mean 'real' (and not 'concrete' or 'physical') is the only interpretation that fits with Marx's usage of 'material' as always linked with 'production' (which is human, and thus related to 'theory and practice', which requires both 'ideas' and 'reality').These opposing interpretations of what 'real' means (either 'material' meaning 'concrete', or 'ideal' and 'material') are ideological beliefs. The former ('material' means 'concrete') is based upon 19th century positivism, which deflected Engels from Marx's meaning ('material' meaning 'human production').As ideological beliefs, they have political implications. The 'materialists' will pretend that they have access to the 'concrete', which humans don't, because Marx argued that humans produce their 'material' world, and so the 'concrete' is a product of human ideas practiced upon nature.The 'concrete' of the 'materialists' is uncriticisable, because 'what is' is, well, 'what is'. It is 'being'.For Marx, since 'material production' is by humans, and human products can be changed or proved wrong with new theories, the 'concrete', being a product (including ideas/knowledge, as much as bricks) can be criticised. Marx does not separate 'being' from 'consciousness', but unites them in a philosophy of praxis, of 'theory and practice', the interaction of subject and object (and not merely the 'object', as for 'materialists'). Change can only come from criticism, which is human ideas. Pretending 'ideas' are less worthy than the 'concrete' will lead to a minority providing the 'ideas' to the class; a minority like elite scientists and Party Cadre. The 'concrete' or 'materialism' is the philosophical basis of Leninism. It's roots are in bourgeois positivist science of the 19th century.Whilst workers listen to the 'materialists', they will not understand Marx's views. Marx unified insights from both idealists (like Kant and Hegel) and materialists (like Feuerbach). He was not a 'materialist'.Read the Theses on Feuerbach, comrades.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:Why not the 'broad sense' of including 'idealism' within 'materialism'? Which is what Marx included.This is confused because you seem think that "idealism" means "ideas" and "materialism" means "matter (which excludes ideas)". In short you seem to be stuck in a dualist way of thinking.
I'll take your statement at face value, DJP, though, god knows, I've been duped enough times.I'm not a dualist, because I can state what ideas I use to understand the material, because it's impossible to separate the two.Every time I've asked you to do the same, that is, tell me what ideology you use to understand the physical (or what ideology Strawson, or the other 'mind'-related theorists, whose links you have provided, employ), you haven't done so.This is because, I claim, you are not basing your ideas upon 'theory and practice', which was Marx's method. If I'm wrong, just tell us your ideology of science, that you employ to understand the physical.So, my 'theory' is Critical Realism, which I think is the same as Marx's method, because CR can be used to explain both rocks and value. I think CR is entirely compatible with both Communism and Democracy, and can provide a basis for a unified scientific method, which Marx sought. I'm always willing for comrades to point out how they think CR is not compatible, but no-one has.I'm open about my 'monist' ideology regarding science, so here's your chance to tell us what unites the ideal and physical in your ideology of science.If you don't 'expose' this in return, as I have 'exposed', I'll assume you're just trolling me, as you have done so far.
ALB wrote:But "materialist-critical socialism" is as ok by me as well as "the materialist conception of history" or even "historical materialism". I don't think they are misleading (unless you want to be misled).So, why not 'idealism-materialism', which captures both elements in Marx's double-barrelled 'concept'?That's not 'misleading', either.
ALB wrote:So this is a never-ending argument about definitions.. As I say, I'm happy to call myself, like Marx was, to a "materialist" in some broad sense.Why not the 'broad sense' of including 'idealism' within 'materialism'? Which is what Marx included.
ALB wrote:I don't think that either "productionism" or "idealism-materialism" is a better name than "historical materialism". In fact, the second is a bit of an oxymoron like "square circle", "military intelligence" or "Islamic scholar".Yes, but an oxymoron must be condemned on account of both elements, because it is the putting together of both that causes the clash of 'sharp/blunt' or 'clever/stupid' (which is what 'oxymoron' means in Greek). Either element on its own is just a term.So, if 'idealism-materialism' is to be condemned as an oxymoron, 'materialism' is part of the problem, too.Whereas I'm prepared to accept that 'historical materialism' can be regarded as a synonym for 'idealism-materialism', you are clearly not.Why? What is the sticking point in the discussion between us in accepting both parts of Marx's concept, as outlined both in the Theses in 1845 and in his letter to Sorge in 1877, to which your quote from Bottomore and Rubel drew my attention.This is the crux of our problem, and it's a philosophical difference, rather than a definitional one. If it was 'mere words', you'd have no problem with my suggestion.Unless the philosophical issue (and for us, the political implications, too) is resolved, then it remains a mystery to most workers, and Leninism and its 'materialism' will remain a threat to our class consciousness.
LBird, post #20, wrote:A further reference for ALB.Marx, quoted in Bottomore and Rubel, p. 31, wrote:…materialist-critical socialism…In Marx Engels Selected Correspondence, this is given as
Marx, MESC, p. 310, wrote:…materialistically critical socialism…Marx to F. A. Sorge, October 19th, 1877
Since ALB hasn’t yet come back with a comment on the quote above, I’ll give the wider quotes, which also point to regarding part of ‘idealism’ as being a constituent of his ‘materialism’.
Bottomore and Rubel, p. 31 wrote:In a later passage of the same letter he [ie. Marx] criticizes ‘Utopian Socialism’, which ‘in the period before materialist-critical socialism had contained the latter in germ…And
Marx, MESC, p. 310, wrote:It is natural that utopianism, which before the era of materialistically critical socialism concealed the latter within itself in embryo…[his italics]Thus, the ‘embryo’ or ‘germ’ of Marx’s ‘materialism’ was ‘contained’ / ‘concealed’ within ‘idealism’.Thus, we can see that whatever Marx’s ‘materialism’ was, it wasn’t simply ‘materialism’, which is why it is always prefixed by other terms which try to capture this element of ‘idealism’, whether ‘historical’, ‘dialectical’, ALB’s suggested ‘social’, or my suggested ‘idealism’.The stress on the ‘materialism’ within Marx’s thinking is only acceptable if there is also a comparable stress on the ‘idealism’ within his thinking. And to reject this equally valued element in his thinking, by focussing merely upon ‘materialism’ to the exclusion of ‘idealism’, is to return to mechanical materialism, and its focus on ‘matter’ or the ‘physical’ or ‘being’, and its exclusion of ideas and consciousness. In short, its refusal to expose its own ideologically grounding, the basis of its own 'theory and practice'.
YMS wrote:Anyway, I think, since you're willing to rely on the german Ideology for a phisolosophical basis…I'm not willing to rely on any text, YMS. I want a discussion with comrades who also want to develop their ideas.Unlike you, I'm not the adherent of a religious ideology.Their god is 'matter'.And all those who dare to question 'matter', are condemned as heretics, trolls, and… wait for it… idealists!The religious know so, because the prophet Engels told them so.Although, most have never read either Marx or Engels, but they have it on the good authority of someone who has, so they say, read and understood the words of the masters. These are the priests of the religion of 'materialism', who tell the laity about 'materialism' and its goodness and the evilness of (boo, hiss) 'idealism'.I've even given the page number in Engels' pamphlet, where the priests got this nonsense from, so that the unread laity can refer to it and can start to develop their own understanding. But the laity are wary…. they've been warned, constantly, about the nasty 'idealists'… even the very word sends shudders through their bodies…… after all, 'idealism-materialism' is a contradiction, isn't it?Why 'theory and practice' was ever used by Communists, is anyone's guess. Surely it should be 'practice and theory', or just 'practice'…No, comrades, I'm afraid it's 'theory and practice', and I want to know what ideological theory each scientist employs in their practice.They always deny having an ideology, of course, because the 'material' talks to them…19th century bullshit, and whilst any socialists follow it, the working class will get nowhere. Except more 'leaders' in The Party, who supply, surreptitiously, the ideas missing from the material.Like 'scientists', they have a special consciousness denied to our class, which ensures that a democratic vote can never be taken on what either physicists or cadre tell us.I've said all this before, but… back to 'materialism'. "But it's solid, LBird, unlike an idea…"
DJP wrote:But I'm stopping now because as far as I'm concerned you're just trolling…If anyone is trolling around here, it's you and YMS.No matter how many times I explain, give quotes, construct detailed analogies, you can guarantee that you and YMS will chirp in with "But it's material!"When asked which ideology says 'But it's material!', neither of you can give an answer.And your endless reference to 'physicalists' shows that you don't have a clue what's being discussed.Strawson and the rest are just as clueless, too.
YMS wrote:Pretty much what Lbird is saying, AFAICS.Nothing like what I'm saying, but don't let that interfere with your fantasy.Unless you (and DJP) are prepared to discuss the philosophical and ideological differences (and similarities) between thinkers (including Marx and Engels), then you'll never understand what 'LBird is saying'.But then, for 'materialists', this is a pointless exercise, because they have access to 'The Truth', and the very concept that 'ideas' are required to understand 'material', and thus that both must be examined, because changing 'ideas' changes understanding of 'material', is anathema to 'materialists'. They have access to the 'material' as it is, and 'what is' thus cannot be criticised. How can 'truth' be criticised, if the 'truth' is identical to 'what exists'. Their 'understanding' is given by the 'material', because their knowledge of the 'material' is a copy, a reflection of 'reality'.Why not read the book ALB says is recommended reading by the SPGB? That is, Karl Marx: Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy edited by Bottomore and Rubel. At least it's a start for critical thinking about Marx's 'materialism'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:You seem to have misunderstood what part of the sentence I objected to.Quote:For a communista communist can hold any philosophical view, as long as they believe in the common ownership of wealth, whether they are theistically inspired, idealistically inspired or materialistically inspired, they remain communists. So what you wrote was simple not true, in any sense, and cannot be defended.
Spoken like a true liberal, for whom 'individual choice' reigns supreme.Politics and power really are a mystery to you, YMS.If you don't want to discuss Marx's 'materialism', then please ignore me.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:For a Communist, the ideas are as real as the physical.This, of course, is completely untrue and galavanting ignorant rubbish.
You need to either speak to ALB, or read Dietzgen. Or any Critical Realist.Or just get out more.
DJP wrote:Your question just doesn't make sense…So why not draw the conclusion that what I'm saying is of no interest to you, because it is senseless, and just ignore me?I've done my best to point out why we disagree (we have different philosophical assumptions), but you don't seem interested in exploring our differences.This is a philosophical issue, not one of 'physics'.That is, it's about 'science' as a human (and therefore ideological) activity, not about 'science' as a 'discovery method for Material Truth'.So, my 'question' won't 'make sense' to you.
A further reference for ALB.
Marx, quoted in Bottomore and Rubel, p. 31, wrote:…materialist-critical socialism…In Marx Engels Selected Correspondence, this is given as
Marx, MESC, p. 310, wrote:…materialistically critical socialism…Marx to F. A. Sorge, October 19th, 1877
DJP wrote:Strawson wrote:Materialism is the view that every real, concrete phenomenon in the universe is physical.This is an ideological statement.Strawson is not a Communist.For a Communist, the ideas are as real as the physical.Marx argues that not one iota of matter can be found in 'value'. It is not simply physical.Value is 'ideal-material'.
DJP wrote:It just that 'mental' is a catergory of "material" phenomena…So why can't the ideal supervene on the material, and the material supervene on the ideal?If the 'mental' is 'material', then ideas must produce material.You deny this by arguing for 'physicalism', which is just the modern term for 'mechanical materialism'.
