[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Actually I think calling Marx a "critical realist" is not an unreasonable way to go.i don't think coining the term "idealism-materialism" is helpful for anyone, yet alone yourself.

But this is an opinion about the usage, not the substantive.I'm open to suggestions about how to help other comrades understand why Marx wasn't a 'materialist', if you now agree about that substantive issue.

DJP wrote:

Yes and No. Yes, Marx was not a "crude materialist" but he was still a materialist. But to say that one is a "materialism" does not mean that one is necessarily endorsing "crude materialism"

I think I've shown time and again why it does mean necessarily endorsing 'crude materialism'.'Physicalism', for example, is a new name for 'crude materialism'.I'm a Critical Realist, and I think Marx was too, and thus 'ideas' are as important as the 'material'.The 'material' does not take cognitive priority to the 'ideal', even if it clearly takes historical priority.The simple fact that the 'material' existed prior to consciousness has no implications for the cognitive process, other than to ensure that the material and ideal are a unity, expressed through 'theory and practice'.The material doesn't simply tell us 'what it is'. Pannekoek called the 'laws of physics' a human invention, didn't he? I've quoted that enough times, too.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Personally I'm proud to call myself a "materialist", always have been, despite the word's association with one-sided, mechanical materialism. You're one too on this definition.

Yes, I agree. But I prefer the term 'realist', simply because it forces the question onto the agenda about Marx's alleged 'materialism'. This ALWAYS defaults to Engels' definition, and then comrades unfortunately return to 'mechanical materialism', but with the qualifier now well hidden.'Historical Materialism' in effect means 'Not Materialism' ('materialism' here in its, as you say, 'one-sided' meaning).

ALB wrote:

It looks as if you need to define what you mean by "religious". It doesn't seem to be a normal usage.

You mean you can't sense the religious fervour of the 'materialists' here, in their defence of their Faith?For them, 'matter' is a no-go zone for most humans, a 'matter' only for the special few, who have a special understanding denied the masses.You yourself seem to see physicists as priests. Who are the laity to question the priesthood?It's the 'scientific' route to Leninism and The Party. 'Matter' replaces 'God'. And cadre replaces priesthood. And laity replaces class.'Democracy' is always an evil to the elite. They'll fight, like vampires fight for blood donorship, to retain elite control.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

I've already explained, long and hard, that, like Marx, I'm an 'idealist-materialist'.

Why then did he not refer to himself as such?And why are you the *only* person to describe themselves as such?

We've done this one to death, DJP.You don't agree that Marx was an early 'critical realist'. The term didn't exist then, so he employed 'materialism' with an 'add-on'. Engels and his adherents always drop the 'add-on'.I use 'idealist-materialist' as a helpful shortcut for comrades who are new to these discussions, and can't yet make sense of Marx's Theses on Feuerbach.Put simply, Marx is not a simple 'materialist': he blended both the insights from the materialists and the idealists, into 'theory and practice'. To call Marx a 'materialist' loses his activist, human, theoretical, social, emphasis.You seem to be content to leave Marx's works as misunderstood and unexplained.I wish to encourage comrades to ask questions, and to try to understand Marx.I've gone through this all before, so I can only conclude you're trolling me, when you disingenuously ask, yet again, why he didn't refer to himself as such.You already know my answer to this question. Why keep asking it? If you don't agree, then fine, have done with it, and leave the thread to those who are intrigued by new explanations.Why keep pestering me?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

What? Mach argued for the democratic control of physics? Mach argued for workers voting for 'Truth'?

I wouldn't have thought so. Not sure I do either. Democratic control of scientific research, yes, but settling rival explanations of some phenomenon offered by scientists by a general vote even in socialist/communist society, I don't think so.

Thanks for your honesty, ALB.So, 'elite experts', rather than democracy, eh?I'd've thought Communism would involve expanding the education of all humans, to allow all to participate in the running of their society, including the generation of its knowledge.But, apparently not.This wouldn't be a 'ruling class' idea about 'the mob being too thick to understand the concerns of their betters', would it?After all, just look around you, at the real world… they're all only interested in food and pleasure…It's a no-brainer… keep their mucky fingers off our pristine knowledge.No, ALB, I'm a Communist. Either workers develop themselves, or Communism doesn't happen. Neither you nor I can do it for them. That's Leninism.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

A discussion of 'capitalism' (and its explanation by us, translating Marx's difficult works) is a long, long, long way down the road, Vin.This is about philosophy of science, for Communists. When we've got that sorted out, it might give us some insights in how to explain Marx's works, which are still opaque to most (including me!), which I think should be the task of class conscious workers, like us, in attempting to explain the world to other workers, a world both physical and social.

More confusionSo I take it you believe that the WSM has it all wrong but you can't explain why until we have a proletarian science?  

I'm afraid you're going to have to stay 'confused', Vin, until you enter the spirit of the discussion.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Obviously I was using the word "materialism" in a very general sense to mean nothing more, in the end, than "non-religious" and "non-theistic", not in any particular narrow, technical philosophical sense. Obviously too, Marx (and Engels) were materialists in this sense.

But 'materialists' are idealists and religious! They worship 'nature' (or, 'maths', some of them).I'm not, Marx wasn't, you say you're not, and Engels wavered, as an amateur who didn't grasp the significance of the Theses on Feuerbach (or, more probably, forgot them under the immense pressure of 19th century science).I think it best to clarify what is meant by 'materialism'.Marx meant 'idealism-materialism', and I agree with him. We can't take history out of maths or physics. Humans are at the heart of our understanding of the world. Understanding is social, not individual. Societies change, understanding changes. Maths and physics change.Criticism of the 'existing' is the way forward.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird,can human thought make the number of prime non-infinite?  Whether we invented numbers or found them  primes are infinite, irrespective of the wishes or ideas of humans. 

'Human thought' can do anything it wants to, YMS.Whether that 'thought' is useful, though, requires the scientific method of 'theory and practice', but this method does not guarantee an outcome of 'Infinite Truth', as we now know.You stick to 'maths', amd the rest of us will explore the philosophy of science, and its potential for human advancement.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

All we are committed to is a general materialist and non-religious position. As one such position yours would not be a bar to membership.

[my bold]Ahh, but the first half of that 'commitment' would be a bar.I've already explained, long and hard, that, like Marx, I'm an 'idealist-materialist'.Historial Materialism (or, the Materialist Conception of History) is a rejection of 'general' materialism, which always turns out to be good, old-fashioned, mechanical, physical 'Materialism'.Ask Engels!Or YMS, who has already got to 'the heart of the matter'.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Fact, 1+1=2, 2+2=4 and on and on.

No, not a 'fact', SP!2+2=11.'2+2=4' is only a 'fact' within the human framework of base 10.'2+2=11' is a 'fact' within the alternative human framework of base 3.But, according to YMS, base 10 has nothing to do with humans. I have my suspicions, though, that 'maths' was invented, rather than is the Revealed Truth.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

But, if you wish to remain looking 'through bourgeois scientific specacles' (perhaps in the mistaken belief that there are no 'bourgeois spectacles'), why bother to criticise 'bourgeois' economics, either? Or 'individualism'?In fact, why not just stick to the old way of doing things? I'm baffled by the obvious belief on this site in the sanctity of bourgeois thought.

 So if the WSM has it all wrong –   with us using our bourgioes specs  –  then pehaps you can explain where the SPGB's anaysis of capitalism is incorrect?edit: as a result of us using bourgeois science.

A discussion of 'capitalism' (and its explanation by us, translating Marx's difficult works) is a long, long, long way down the road, Vin.This is about philosophy of science, for Communists. When we've got that sorted out, it might give us some insights in how to explain Marx's works, which are still opaque to most (including me!), which I think should be the task of class conscious workers, like us, in attempting to explain the world to other workers, a world both physical and social.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Whether you are proletarian, aristocracy, or bourgeois, there are an infinite number of primes. So, it does cut to the heart of the matter.

Well, that's solved that then. The 'mathematicians' don't agree with Marx.'Maths' is not a social construct, with a historical development, and 'primes' told us what they are (no need for humans and their thought there, eh?).Oh, so now we have a 'material', non-human basis for maths… and physics… and err… chemistry…. [to cut a long story short]… politics, sociology, economics…The 19th century scientists were right, after all!Bollocks to Marx, Einstein, Rovelli… we've 'cut to the heart of the matter'.Individual, Matter, Market…Eternal Truth: TINA!Who needs the bourgeoisie to 'big themselves up', when the 'socialists' are doing it for them?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I wasn't trying to categorise you as a "Machist". Just pointing out that in the passage quoted in the book he seemed to be saying something similar to what you are.

What? Mach argued for the democratic control of physics? Mach argued for workers voting for 'Truth'?Can you point out the relevant passages, ALB? Perhaps I am a Machist.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Most of us here can see that this might make sense with regard to history, society, economics but not to the so-called natural sciences, e.g. there is no "proletarian" or "communist" or "bourgeois" or "capitalist" astronomy or chemistry, just astronomy or chemistry.

So, fuck Marx and his 'unity of science', then?Why not all just openly say it?'Marx was wrong' about a unified scientific method, and then I can go away, and do something better with my time.I agree with Marx. If the SPGB doesn't, say so, and I'll bid you all a comradely 'goodbye'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

His problem, as far as I can see, is that he regards any interpretation of the observable world as entirely subjective, hence opening the door to "extreme relativism".

But I keep stressing 'THEORY AND PRACTICE' and 'SOCIAL SUBJECT' and 'REALISM'.How to god can that be interpretated as ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE?I'm beginning to think my screen is showing different words to those of other comrades here.Can everybody see 'THEORY AND PRACTICE'?Can everybody see 'SOCIAL SUBJECT'?Can everybody see 'REALISM'?I suppose we're back on the merry-go-round, where my words are ignored and replaced by those of a different ideology.Oh, sorry, I'm the only ideologist here, aren't I. What a joke.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

There is a new hurdle facing the socialist movement:We in the world socialist movement have up until now analysed capitalism through bourgeois scientific spectacles which means we are way off the mark.Furthermore, we have failed to grasp this idea of a ‘proletarian science’ so what hope is there for the working class?The vast majority of workers will have to grapple with the ‘philosophy of science’ understand the past errors of bourgeois and other philosophies and settle on a ‘proletarian science’.A mammoth task indeed 

Vin, how else can you see workers taking over production, if not by 'grappling' with 'science'?If workers remain merely concerned with their 'day-to-day' lives, of feeding and enjoying themselves, who will make their decisions for them? The 'elite' that Marx warns us against?Of course it's 'a mammoth task'!I, for one, am prepared to try to both develop myself and my comrades.But, if you wish to remain looking 'through bourgeois scientific specacles' (perhaps in the mistaken belief that there are no 'bourgeois spectacles'), why bother to criticise 'bourgeois' economics, either? Or 'individualism'?In fact, why not just stick to the old way of doing things? I'm baffled by the obvious belief on this site in the sanctity of bourgeois thought.Oh, sorry, the 'Real World' (copyright, Conservative Philosophical Productions) which is obvious to any individual who cares to open their bedroom curtains in the morning. There's no need to confront our social brainwashing – after all, we're all individuals!What do comrades here think that 'ruling class ideas' consist of?'Ruling class ideas' are the ideas that most people hold: 'science produces the Truth', 'we're all individuals', 'TINA to the Market'. If you've rejected the last one, Vin, why not the others?This is not a 'new hurdle', Vin, but the same one we still haven't leapt since Marx's death.

[Author]

Posts