[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Since when have you been a communist?  That comes as a complete surprise to me.

It doesn't come as a surprise to me that you don't recognise the significance of political ideology in science, because you're not a Communist.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Quote:

If that's the case, then fine, we should come up with another term which captures the necessity of regarding the 'ideal' and the 'material' as being of equal significance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monismWhy reinvent the wheel?

From a very brief look, YMS, the thinkers referred to seem to be 'pragmatists'.They are not Socialists/Communists.If your ideology says that 'science' can be done without involving 'politics', then this link may be of some use to you.Because I'm a Communist, I don't think that any human 'theory and practice' can be done without a consideration of 'society'. The pragmatists ignore society, and focus on individuals and their personal experiences. Pragmatism is rooted in 19th century US social and political thinking.'Materialists' ignore ideology, whereas Communists don't.

[LBird]

At least you're prepared to continue to engage with this problem, ALB. Bottomore and Rubel's book is one of the sources that started me on this apparently thankless task.

ALB wrote:

Looks like a 1 all draw then, unless Marx's preparedness to be regarded as some kind of 'materialist' is not taken into account (how could he not have been prepared to given the number of times he used the word 'material' ! )

Why you (and others) keep arguing that 'Marx was prepared to be regarded as some kind of 'materialist', as some sort of comeback to those thinkers who themselves keep saying that 'Marx was some kind of materialist' (including me, when I use the formulation 'idealist-MATERIALIST'), I don't know.It's as if the word 'materialist' has for youse a religious conotation, and the reciting of it wards off evil, especially in the guise of nasty 'Idealists', that Engels warned you about.Unless, as Bottomore, Rubel and lots of other Marxists and Communists have said for nearly a century, we discuss the problematic meaning of 'materialism', then we'll remain stuck in the 19th century.

ALB wrote:

In any event, I would have thought that the word "productionist" would be open to a greater misunderstanding than "materialist".

If that's the case, then fine, we should come up with another term which captures the necessity of regarding the 'ideal' and the 'material' as being of equal significance. Polemically, I've used 'idealism-materialism', as these are the terms used in the Theses on Feuerbach by Marx, and any comrades reading the text for the first time, needs to be familiar with those terms and their relationships and refashioning by Marx within the text.

ALB wrote:

If people don't like "historical materialism", what about "social materialism"?

No. Because it contains the term 'materialism', but not the term of equal significance for humans and their knowledge, 'idealism', Marx's 'active side'. Either both are included, or both are removed and a new term, which captures human theory and practice ('production', perhaps?). Whilst the term only includes 'materialism', we'll continue with comrades thinking it's only about 'materialism' (ie. physical things, touchable objects, (even biological 'sense-impressions', as opposed to 'perception', which is social and requires 'ideas')).Given that you've read Dietzgen, ALB, whereas the rest here seem not to have, you're aware of his argument about the equality of 'things' and 'ideas', and that he tried to capture this 'idealism-materialism' with his term 'dialectical materialism', which for him amounted to the same thing as my term. [to any other comrades reading, Dietzgen's 'dia mat' is nothing to do with the later 'Dialectical Materialism' of Engels, the Second International, and the Russians].Since you are aware of this sensitivity to 'materialism' since Marx was still alive, I'm not sure why you can't see that there are three 'distinctions' (your term) to be drawn, between 'idealism', 'materialism' and a third which Marx clearly argued for in his Theses.The best I can come up with is that in  the context of his times, Marx was so opposed to 'religion', and identified modern 'idealism' as synonymous with it, and so felt thus compelled to retain 'materialism' in his discussion of human social production, that he wasn't aware of how it would pan out as the 19th century progressed. The massive advances by bourgeois science using positivism and its 'truths' about the 'material world' (and its separation of 'social' and 'physical' science) would not have been apparent to Marx for much of his life.Whatever happened, there is no excuse for us not to use the advances of the 20th century to help us to understand Marx's work (especially as Engels, when not discussing 'matter' and 'material', actually was in step with Marx's 'idealism-materialism').Put simply, Marx wasn't a 'materialist', in the common usage of that term, which is the exclusion of the 'ideal'. If 'ideas' are removed from our class' approach, then they will be re-inserted later by others. And I mean by 'The Party'.PS. please, in any replies by anyone, don't simply say what's been said before, addressed by me, and my replies ignored.

[LBird]

I've dealt with these so-called 'objections', time and time again.I know Engels was involved in the GI. That's why in his 'science and nature' writings he contradicts himself. He was confused about 'materialism'.I know Engels wrote about 'materialist conception of history'. The point is, Marx thought of nature as inseparable from human history, too, whereas Engels didn't.Why these 'objections' are trotted out each time, I don't know.

ALB wrote:

The distinction you are trying to draw is (I think) between philosophical materialism (as a theory of the nature of "reality") and materialist conception of history (as a theory of history and society).

[my bold]No, I wish comrades would read what I write, rather than what they want me to have written.Your 'philosophical materialism' is Engels' view. This is in effect MATERIALISM.Your 'materialist conception of history' is a mythical Marx, who saw his ideas as including 'nature', so his 'm c of h and s' was not a 'theory of history and society' which is separate from 'nature'. Your concept here is in effect IDEALISM.I'm trying to lay a basis for a unified 'theory of human production' (ie. Marx's aim), which includes both human ideas, history and society, and their interaction with nature.Marx doesn't separate out 'nature' from 'society', so neither of your 'distinctions' are Marx's view, which on the contrary is IDEALISM-MATERIALISM.If comrades disagree with me, as I keep saying, that's fine.But at least come to understand what I'm saying, and so know what you disagree with.I'm asking how can a unified philosophy of 'theory and practice', which requires both ideas and nature, be covered by either 'philosophical materialism' (which ignores human ideas/consciousness/society/history) or by (what you call above) 'materialist conception of history' which is about 'history and society' (but not nature)?I keep saying it, but there is a third alternative, and it is the one Marx outlined in the Theses on Feuerbach, a unifying of parts of both idealism and materialism, and a rejection of parts of id. and mat.So, please ALB, recognise that I'm drawing THREE 'distinctions', not TWO.

ALB wrote:

Having said this I think Marx will have been some kind of philosophical materialist too (how could he have been anything else?),…

[my bold]What part of 'idealism-MATERIALISM'  do you seem to be unable to grasp? Why you keep saying that I'm ignoring Marx's 'materialism', I don't know. I'm saying he's both an idealist and a materialist: hence, theory and practice.All I ask is that comrades read the section of the GI that I've quoted above. It's clear that Marx is discussing human production when he talks of 'materialism', and not 'physical things'. He talking as much about 'ideas' as about 'material'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I think you're mistaken. Marx was clearly a goatist, that is he thought that everything is a goat. I have used the Microsoft Word autocorrect feature to correct the entire Marx and Engles collected works so now every reference to "material" and "materialism" has been changed to "goat" and "goatism" respectivly.More on goatism can be found here:https://philosophynow.org/issues/71/Everything_is_a_Goat

You're not doing the reputation of the SPGB any favours by giving childish answers to serious philosophical problems confronting workers who wish to move towards socialist ideas, DJP.The fact that you don't even understand that there is a problem with 'materialism', never mind your inability to wrestle with it by discussing Marx, Engels and the later Marxists, and philosophers of science, in a serious way, is now very clear to anyone reading these continuing discussions.I'd recommend that the SPGB get some other members, who can critically discuss these issues, to intervene.What's most laughable is that what I'm proposing would give a serious philosophical basis to the SPGB's politics, which Engels' 'materialism' clearly doesn't, but that members like DJP can't even see the contradictions between 'materialism' and SPGB strategy.I've said it before, and I'll continue to say it: Engels' 'materialism' provides a philosophical basis to Leninism.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

LBird wrote:

 To me, Morris is far more a 'Marxist' than any Leninist. But that doesn't help in determining why workers have been so reluctant 'to do without masters'.

Could well be due to social conditioning promoting a dependency culture on Leaders?

That's part of the 'ruling class ideas', of course, Brian.But I think it has as much, if not more, to do with lack of confidence. If one gets rid of 'leaders', one has to 'do things for oneself'. It's not enough to be simply critical of 'masters', one has to have experience of 'leading' oneself.Of course, this 'building of confidence' and giving 'experience of leadership' should be part and parcel of joining a socialist party. But the Leninist parties do the exact opposite: they teach initially critical workers (who've rejected capitalism and joined their party) to be subservient, again, to party, central committees, full-timers, cadre… oh yes, and 'matter'.The culture of any workers' party should be to encourage workers to criticise the party itself. If the party is of any use at all to workers, it will be able to deal with any criticisms, and by persuasion keep the party together. Workers running their own branches, without 'full-timer' interference, meetings that criticise the party's own publications, lead by the newest members (where the old hands are kept under the leash of the elected chair), and open and encouraged 'factional' activity, amongst many other techniques, would help to develop the self-confidence of party members.I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Unlike comrades like YMS who blame workers for not choosing 'socialism', I blame socialists for not developing workers whenever they take an interest. Tens (hundreds?) of thousands of workers have been through the Trotskyist parties, in the UK alone. Don't all socialist parties end up ejecting (either formally or by culture) those workers who are critical, those who won't 'toe the party line'?In my experience, counting myself and every other worker I've known who's ever been a member of a 'socialist' party, they've left, not because of 'dependency culture', but because they've realised that the 'socialism' espoused by these parties is a load of nonsense.I'd like to end this post on a comradely note, Brian.But I can't. I put 'materialism' at the top of the philosophical list for these shennanigans. That's always the excuse for knowing better than workers do themselves. 'Material conditions' or 'matter'. After all, one can't criticise 'matter', can one? And that's the start of the rot. From the head down.IMO most party 'leaders' are as thick as pigshit.Can't get less 'dependency culture on Leaders' than that, can we? Morris would have agreed with me, of course.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Morris wrote:

… all but a very small minority are not prepared to do without masters. They do not believe in their own capacity to undertake the management of affairs, and to be responsible for their life in this world.

I can't help but reading 'elite scientists' as also included in Morris' 'masters'.[don't answer that point, ALB, it's a poor, even insensitive, joke]

ALB wrote:

As you say, the situation is (unfortunately) much the same today. It can also be seen why we in the SPGB like Morris.

Yeah, what little I know of Morris (not much beyond what you've written today and in the past here), he seems pretty solid.But, like Marx, he can be criticised for being too optimistic about workers' self-development. This is also by far the weakest part of the arguments that I make too, but a weakness that other socialists can't exploit in polemics, without sounding like Leninists.Of course, the Leninists themselves don't have that disadvantage, when arguing with me, and so can stress the role of a party which has a 'special consciousness' denied to the dumb workers.To me, Morris is far more a 'Marxist' than any Leninist. But that doesn't help in determining why workers have been so reluctant 'to do without masters'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Of course. "Make Socialists" is a simplification. I used it because it is a term William Morris frequently used…

Yeah, I recognise that, but what I'm saying is that given the events of the 20th century (2nd International, 1917, Leninism, Stalin, all the other 'socialist states' including the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea) which Morris didn't live through, it's as well to adapt Morris' term 'make' (which suggests Uncle Joe and Pol Pot to many) to 'help develop' or somesuch.

ALB wrote:

William Morris wrote:

…in spite of the stir in the ranks of labour, there are comparatively few who understand what Socialism is…

I think that this is as true now, as it was then, and was throughout the 20th century. 'Labour stirring' will not lead to socialism. All the activity and practice in the world will not lead to socialism, unless the 'stirring, struggling, activity and practice' is consciously aimed at producing socialism.Fighting for wage rises is not class consciousness. That will not 'develop' or 'make' socialists.Only when workers have already come to doubt the 'wage system' and have been offered an alternative by socialists, will any fighting be conscious. Practice does not lead to theory.Contrary to what some comrades have argued on other threads, I agree with Morris and some other comrades that 'there are comparatively few who understand what Socialism is'.And I blame socialists since Marx for not making the message easier to understand, not the many workers who've been confronted with all sorts of nonsense called 'socialism', and, after taking a glance, have wisely chosen to avoid it.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

…our policy of "making socialists" …

I know what you're getting at here, ALB, and in some sense I obviously agree with it.But the actual phrase 'making socialists' could be interpreted as workers being passively shaped by their 'makers'.I think that it's important to stress the developmental nature of this 'making', as a self-development of workers with the help of other workers. Perhaps an emphasis on a two-stage nature of the process would help.That is, the worker must become critical of 'what exists' in their lives because they can see that so much more is possible (but this is a 'negative' thinking phase of doubting); but to develop into a 'socialist' then the worker must become influenced by other already-socialist workers. Without this second 'positive' phase of options being presented for their selection as answers to their doubts, then the doubts could just as easily develop in the direction of nationalism, for example.So, the potential to be a socialist must already exist, and all we socialists do is help to further develop a tendency that already exists in the 'doubtful' worker: that is, their critical thought based upon doubt of what exists, and their wish to also help other workers develop.Perhaps you should refer to "…our policy of "developing socialists"…".This shows better our view that continuing 'self-development' of us all as workers is our aim, not 'making' something of our own finished design.This also makes plain that we socialists can't make the first phase happen, the 'negative' phase of coming to doubt what exists. That's the initial critical step of each worker for themselves.Some comrades have already referred to 'collecting socialists', and I think that this is preferable to 'making', but I prefer the process-ness of 'developing', because 'collecting' suggests the final product is already complete, and a finality or fixity, and it clearly isn't. We can always develop ourselves.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,I trot it out because, in spite of your protestations, there's precious little real in your realism.  Railing against the tyranny of rocks is to be a Cnut railing against the tides.  Understanding that we are rocks, that rocks.

And you think 'real' means 'material'.I've tried explaining, but to no avail.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

Charlie and Fred wrote:

Once upon a time a valiant fellow had the idea that men were drowned in water only because they were possessed with the idea of gravity. If they were to knock this notion out of their heads, say by stating it to be a superstition, a religious concept, they would be sublimely proof against any danger from water. His whole life long he fought against the illusion of gravity, of whose harmful results all statistics brought him new and manifold evidence.

Yeah, the 'materialists' always trot out this quote when confronting the evil 'idealists', of their own imagination.What it has to do with arguing with Marxist 'idealist-materialists', I'll never know.You continue to believe that Marx was arguing against 'gravity', and that anyone who as much as mentions 'humans' is an 'idealist'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

But the world as it stands isn't standing still, it moves, and our understanding is both shaped by and shaping of that movement.

My mistake. Not 'the tyranny of the rocks', but the entirely mobile 'tyranny of the rolling stones'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

I think that I've done my best to show why 'materialism' can't provide a critical basis

All you've done is shown that you don't really get what "materialism" means.Perhaps this will help…

Galen Strawson – Real Materialism wrote:

…

Thanks DJP, but I already know what 'materialism' means.It means 'No revolution'. And 'the tyranny of the rocks'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I wonder if LBird thinks that 'cows' and 'animals' are opposing catergories?FWIW worth this is the same mistake he is making in his understanding of "material" and "mental" (or perhaps better put as experiencial)..

There seems no point in responding yet again to this sort of thing, because it seems that many here have given up discussing the philosophical problems of (not only) YMS's following of Engels' 'materialism'.If those who can't provide a foundation of critical thought, for workers coming to consciousness of this world, have to allege that those who are arguing for a 'critical' approach can't tell the difference between a 'cow' and 'animals', then it will have to be left to workers to decide on the merits of the opposing arguments.I think that I've done my best to show why 'materialism' can't provide a critical basis, and further why it does provide a basis for Leninism, but it's up to others to sort out their own thinking on the issue.At least the SPGB is providing a space to air these differences.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,I think this comes down to the nub between us. I'd say socialism arises from the world as it actually exists now, and the only way we can understand socialism is by understanding this world (and therein the possibilities that present themselves to us which, whilst they may have already and always been present were not conscious previously).  That is, revolution does not come from a rejection from the world as it is, but through a dogged grip on the world as it stands.  I think that's the key distinstion between utopianism and marxian socialism.

Yeah, I think you're correct, here, too, YMS. This is the nub of our disagreement.You follow Engels, who separated out 'two' views.I follow Marx, who reconciled 'two' views, producing a 'third'.Workers have been following the 'Idealism versus Materialism' logic for 130 years.But since the 1920s, many thinkers have pointed out that without 'criticism of what exists' in our lives, both physical and philosophical, both in physics and sociology, both in experience and knowledge, then we are stuck with 'what exists'.'A dogged grip on the world as it stands' will give us 'the world as it stands'.And, in fact, once we move away from arcane philosophical issues, and discuss politics, you always take the side of elite experts and deny democratic controls.Your 'dogged grip' is preventing you from seeing the necessity of revolution throughout our world. That means in science and maths, as much as in the 'things you can touch'.That is, a revolution in both the 'material' and the 'ideal'. As Marx argued, and as Engels didn't.You think 'truth' is external to humans, I think 'truth' is produced by humans. You think 'truth' is 'material', I think 'truth' is 'social'.If 'truth' is external and material, it can't be criticised and changed. If 'truth' is socially produced, we can criticise 'what exists' and change 'truth'.

[Author]

Posts