[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…that my road to development lie through and with my fellows.

That implies democracy, and not 'free individual'. You keep making the above statement, but denying its political implications.What your constant reference to yourself, as the final arbiter of what you will or won't do, means is:

YMS, to be philosophically and politically consistent should have wrote:

…that my road to development lie through me.

If you claim to be a 'social individual', YMS, you have to say what your social role is: either 'worker' or 'boss' (at its simplest). These are structural roles. In CR terms, our 'individuality' is at the 'component level' and our 'worker-ness' is at the level of 'structure'. So, as an 'individual', one is like a use-value (eg., a tin of beans, a component outside of any structure), whereas as a 'worker', one is like an exchange-value (eg., a commodity, a component within a structure).If one wishes to understand the two-sidedness of bricks/walls, use-value/exchange-value, tins of beans/commodities, individuals/society, that is, relationships, one should employ Critical Realism, the modern name for the method used by Marx's 'idealism-materialism'.Claiming to be a 'free individual' is bourgeois ideology, and ignores the inescapable social context for every human that has ever lived. It ignores relationships.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…the free development of each will be the condition for the free development of all…

[my bold]You recognise no 'condition' upon the 'individual'.For one's development, there is the condition that all must be able to develop.'The free development of each' (in other words, we must provide the conditions for the development of each and every individual) is a condition imposed on 'all'.The 'free development of each' can't simply be the lone task for each individual, as you allege, but is a social task for all.You pay lip service to the concept of a 'social individual', and claim to be one, but won't allow any claim of the 'social' half of the couplet to intefere with your 'biological' half of you as an 'individual'.As a 'social individual', I will comply with the democratic decisions of me and my comrades.As a self-declared 'individual', you won't.But then, I'm democratic Communist.You're a bourgeois individualist who doesn't like what he sees of bourgeois society in reality (because you are not 'free' to do as you want), and so wishes to realise the myth of bourgeois individualism in a non-bourgeois society.You mouth platitudes, but have no concept whatsoever of the political implications of those views.Communist society won't be 7 billion isolated individuals doing as they like, but 7 billion social individuals working to a common purpose, the social task of developing 7 billion individuals.Communism is not solipsism.

[LBird]

Marx commenting upon YMS's 'individual' view of 'individual' production.

Marx, Introduction, wrote:

The further back we trace the course of history, the more does the individual, and accordingly also the producing individual, appear to be dependent and to belong to a larger whole. At first, the individual in a still quite natural manner is part of the family and of the tribe which evolves from the family; later he is part of a community, of one of the different forms of the community which arise from the conflict and the merging of tribes. It is not until the eighteenth century that in bourgeois society the various forms of the social texture confront the individual as merely means towards his private ends, as external necessity. But the epoch which produces this standpoint, namely that of the solitary individual, is precisely the epoch of the (as yet) most highly developed social (according to this standpoint, general) relations. Man is a Zoon politikon [political animal] in the most literal sense: he is not only a social animal, but an animal that can be individualised only within society. Production by a solitary individual outside society – a rare event, which might occur when a civilised person who has already absorbed the dynamic social forces is accidentally cast into the wilderness – is just as preposterous as the development of speech without individuals who live together and talk to one another. It is unnecessary to dwell upon this point further. It need not have been mentioned at all, if this inanity, which had rhyme and reason in the works of eighteenth-century writers, were not expressly introduced once more into modern political economy by Bastiat, Carey, Proudhon, etc. It is of course very pleasant for Proudhon, for instance, to be able to explain the origin of an economic relationship – whose historical evolution he does not know – in an historico-philosophical manner by means of mythology; alleging that Adam or Prometheus hit upon the ready-made idea, which was then put into practice, etc. Nothing is more tedious and dull than the fantasies of locus communis.Thus when we speak of production, we always have in mind production at a definite stage of social development, production by individuals in a society.

[my bold]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/appx1.htm#188YMS, an 'individual' of his 'epoch', both regarding politics and science.Apparently, according to YMS, Communism will involve more of the same 'individualism'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

If you have a clear grasp of what it is you're trying to say this shouldn't be too difficult.

I've said this over and over, DJP.Neither you nor YMS are Democratic Communists/Socialists or Marxist 'idealist-materialists', who emphasise human social activity, creativity and criticism (in short, 'ideas', the 'ideal', Marx's 'active side'), and the provisional nature of 'knowledge' and 'truth'.You both seem to be 'individualists' and Engelsian 'materialist/physicalists', who emphasise biological sense impressions, human passivity when confronted with the 'material', and the purely physical nature of 'reality' and 'eternal Truth'.It's not too difficult to say, but apparently it's too difficult for you two to grasp.After more than 12 months of my presence here, and nearly 1000 posts on this thread alone, you two (and others) still don't seem to have the slightest clue about the problems, which have been obvious since the 1920s/30s, with 'official Marxism' (ie. Engels and 'materialism'). Talk about 'heads in the sand'.Quite frankly, DJP, its religious certainty that I'm trying to overcome.

[LBird]

Fred Engels, in a letter to Schimdt, wrote:

The materialist conception of history has a lot of them nowadays, to whom it serves as an excuse for not studying history. Just as Marx used to say, commenting on the French "Marxists" of the late [18]70s: "All I know is that I am not a Marxist."….In general, the word "materialistic" serves many of the younger writers in Germany as a mere phrase with which anything and everything is labeled without further study, that is, they stick on this label and then consider the question disposed of. But our conception of history is above all a guide to study, not a lever for construction after the manner of the Hegelian. All history must be studied afresh, the conditions of existence of the different formations of society must be examined individually before the attempt is made to deduce them from the political, civil law, aesthetic, philosophic, religious, etc., views corresponding to them. Up to now but little has been done here because only a few people have got down to it seriously. In this field we can utilize heaps of help, it is immensely big, anyone who will work seriously can achieve much and distinguish himself. But instead of this too many of the younger Germans simply make use of the phrase historical materialism (and everything can be turned into a phrase) only in order to get their own relatively scanty historical knowledge — for economic history is still as yet in its swaddling clothes! — constructed into a neat system as quickly as possible, and they then deem themselves something very tremendous.

[my bold]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_05.htmWho is the contributor to this thread who is actually studying the issue of 'Science for Communists?'?It's certainly not the 'materialists'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

But how do you know that the distortion you've identified isn't actually a distortion of the truth: that we can know?  If every claim about the world is a distotrion then so is the claim that there is a distortion, so claims could be true, except if they were true then that claim would be false, so it wouldn't be a distortion so it would be true.  All Yorkshiremen are liars.

If you're happy with that conclusion, I'm happy for you, too.Me, though? I'm afraid not.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…By the way, how do you know that there is distortion? I don't think you can know that…

Science tells us that.Human science.The science that came after the one you're wedded to.Marx's science.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…it's to rebut distortion.

Since everything humans approach is 'distorted' by the action of 'approachment', then we have to expose our framework of 'distortion'.I do this, but you (and the others) do not. You won't tell us your ideology.Unless, of course, one claims to have a scientific method that allows humans to approach reality (ideal and material) without distortion (as 19th century science claimed), and thus one 'doesn't have an ideology', but merely deals with 'reality'.I think that you think that you have an 'undistorting' approach, YMS, and that you merely deal with the 'real world' of your senses.For you, this 'empiricism' is tied to a view of yourself as an 'individual'.Whatever one thinks of this, it's nothing to do with Marx's views.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Blah, blah blah…

Karl Marx wrote:

He [Her Duhring] knows very well that my method of development is not Hegelian, since I am a materialist and Hegel is an idealist. Hegel's dialectic is the basic form of all dialectic, but only after it has been stripped of its mystical form, and it is precisely this which distinguishes my method.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_03_06-abs.htm 

So there you go…

Ahhh… the religious and their texts, eh?Yes indeed, 'there we go…'.You won't have a word said against your gods, and heresy really annoys you so much, that you can't just let critical thought explore, can you, DJP? You just have to keep chipping in, every so often, having ignored all the detailed posts I've written, and the other thinkers that I've quoted, and indeed Einstein and Kepler, because you're a religious devotee.I'm very clear that I wouldn't last long in the SPGB. In fact, all the contributions by SPGB members on this thread have been intensely hostile to my critical engagement with Marx and Engels. Or, your god, 'Marx-Engels'.Not one SPGB member has displayed any doubt at all.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I'd like to see that.  Although the fact that the theses ends with Chuck announcing the new materialism suggest, er, that he was a materialist…

Funnily enough, I wasn't aiming my query at you, YMS.As you've shown above, you already 'know' the answer.If you're happy with what you 'know', neither will you benefit from reading what I write, nor will I benefit from a critical discussion, and thus any efforts I put into writing a post would be lost on you and would waste my time.I'm beyond the religious certainties of the priests spluttering "But, but, but… it says in the text…"What's more, YMS, you're not even a Communist priest, but an individualist priest…So, no thanks, YMS.Anyone else want to discuss Engels' 'materialism', and how it differs from Marx's 'idealism-materialism'?Whichever comrades are completely happy with the 'materialism' of the multi-person "Marx-Engels", don't bother to engage, because it will be a waste of time. I want to critically discuss the problems which have been evident in "Marx-Engels" since at least the 1930s, rather than merely reiterate the words of the gods, as YMS is already clearly keen to do.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

My participation in this topic has been in regard to Engels…

It would be good to take this discussion forward, because what most comrades regard as 'Marxism' is actually 'Engelsism'.In fact, the more one digs deeper, and reads the two critically, the more it becomes obvious, not only that Engels 'simplification' or 'translation' of Marx was mistaken, but that what most comrades 'believe' to be Marx's ideas, is none other than Engels' reversion to pre-Theses thought about 'materialism'.Put simply, Marx wasn't a 'materialist', in the sense that most comrades appear to believe. Any reading of the Theses shows that Marx was grasping towards a 'mid-position' between 'materialism' and 'idealism', which ditched part of each, and took from part of each.If anyone is still interested (including you, mcolome1), I could put together a brief list of issues which separated the 'materialist' Engels from the 'idealist-materialist' Marx.I won't bother to do this unless there is a taste for critical thought here, though. I've got no time for the religious reverence displayed to either Engels or Marx by some Communists.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

…I have given my opinion, and it is my opinion…

If we're Communists, we always realise we are always expressing someone else's opinions.We're social individuals.You're starting to sound like YMS.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…expressing the essential point that only one eye at a time can peer down a microscope.

So, we're down to an 'eye', now?I think you've answered your ideological question from your own ideological perspective, YMS.Just why you say that you want to discuss what goes on behind an 'eye' (in all its social, historical, cultural richness), but constantly revert to talking about 'only one eye at a time', is a mystery to me.Well, it isn't really. Simply put, you're an individualist, not a Communist.That's me done for the day. You stick to your one-eyed peering, YMS.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Well, what I ask is: can all of us do the same experiment?  Or, must we, as social beings, rely on our fellows to pass us information: preferably in the form of reliable organised knowledge, knowledge which is gathered with an other mind in mind?

I really should let you work this out for yourself, YMS, and resolve the issue in your own mind, because the solution lies in what you have already accepted.But, here goes, FWIW (as Buffalo Springfield said).You have to decide whether an 'individual' does an 'experiment' (in fact, science is much more than this, but we'll have to leave that till much later), or whether a 'social individual' does an experiment.That is, is an experiment a biological act that an individual does, employing their own, isolated, senses and their own, individual 'mind'?Or is an experiment a social act that a social individual does, employing their social perception and their socially-created consciousness?My tip is to ask yourself what ideology you are using to understand 'experiment'. Are you using Communist ideology, which focuses upon the social, or an individualist ideology, which focuses on individual scientists?And further, is science a productive act or a personal act?Again, is 'knowledge' something static that a person can have, or something that society dynamically produces and constantly changes?The solution to your conundrum is in your chosen ideology, YMS. I can't make you a Communist, you either are one or you're not, for reasons external to this discussion.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp5JCrSXkJY

[LBird]

If you've got this far, YMS, and you can see that you're not an 'individual', but a 'social individual', why don't you thus ask where your 'social' aspect comes from, what it consists of, how it affects your theory and practice, etc., etc.?Especially in relation to all of us and 'science' and its 'method'?

[Author]

Posts