LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Marx solved this problem in the 1840s.
He followed the German Idealists in realising that ‘activity’ was the key unifier of ‘idealism’ and ‘materialism’ (the link between subject and object).
Where Marx differed with the GIs was in his philosophical (and political) views regarding the ‘active subject’ (the producer of its own object).
The GIs regarded ‘God’ as the producer, whereas Marx regarded ‘Humanity’ as the producer. That’s why all of Marx’s concepts relate to ‘production’.
Engels inadvertently re-opened the can of worms with his ‘Socialism: Utopian and Scientific’, and returned to a pre-Marx position.
Thus, Marx’s insights, into the ability of humans to change their own world, were lost.
We’re still suffering from this huge mistake of Engels’ making.
From DJP’s article:
“When the German poet and polymath Goethe, the philosopher Friedrich Schelling and the Romanticists revived Spinoza’s philosophy in the 19th century, it inspired scientists working on phenomena such as heat, steam, electricity, complex systems, and the origin of life such as Johann Wilhelm Ritter, who discovered UV radiation and the rechargeable battery, Hans Christian Ørsted who discovered the principle of electromagnetism, Michael Faraday, Alexander von Humboldt, Charles Darwin or Ernst Haeckel. Haeckel who followed Spinoza in conceiving the universe as “a single substance that is God and Nature at the same time” even got himself announced as a monistic “antipope”. On the other hand, the credo of the Romanticists who stressed the priority of the creative subject over objective facts favored a development fostering alternative facts and pseudo-science that brought about an association of monism with esotericism.”
This is probably the key to further discussion: which supposed ‘version’ of the Romantics did Marx follow?
Or is the article written by a dualist, who separates ‘objective facts’ from ‘creative subject’?
DJP wrote: “Thought this article on monism which was published today might be of interest…
https://iai.tv/articles/quantum-physics-reveals-the-unity-of-the-universe-heinrich-pas-auid-2584
”
“ “Manichaeism,” named after its Persian prophet Mani, advocates a worldview quite opposed to monism and claims that the world is caught in an epic struggle between good and evil. Through Manichaeism and similar philosophies, “dualistic” concepts such as angels and demons, God and devil, and heaven and hell received their prominent role among Christian beliefs.”This is precisely the worldview of ‘materialists’, who insist on a separation of ‘mind’ and ’matter’, with the latter being prior to the former. It’s a ‘dualistic’ viewpoint, and its root amongst some communists is from Engels’ “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific”, and not from anything Marx wrote.
Marx’s ‘monism’ followed the German Idealists and their belief in ‘activity’ being the unifier of ‘mind’ and ‘matter’.
But whereas the Idealists regarded ‘god’ as the ‘active producer’, as the creator of reality, Marx insisted that Humanity was the socio-historic producer of its own ‘reality’.
Thus, humans can change their ‘reality’.I think that anyone interested in this debate about Marx’s epistemological views, will find the article at this link very informative:
“Marx’s epistemology and the problem of conflated idealisms”
Thomas More wrote: “…what the heck is happening to your avowed materialism?”
I’ve been trying to get the SPGB to discuss this problem/issue for about a decade now, but to no avail.
The simple answer is that Marx was not a ‘materialist’, and condemned this 18th century ideology of bourgeois science, and predicted that ‘materialists’ would always deny democratic control to the revolutionary proletariat (the vast majority of humanity), and would always retain the power to produce our world for an elite (of scientists, priests, party).
Marx was, to use the phraseology of the 19th century, an ‘idealist-materialist’, who argued that ‘theory and practice’ was required for the socio-historical production of our world, which we could collectively therefore change.
Physics, just like any other human productive activity, would have to be collectively and democratically determined, within any future communist society.
‘Materialists’ deny that this will be a political characteristic of socialism.
DJP quotes Pannekoek:
“Atoms of course are not observed phenomena themselves: they are inferences of our thinking. As such they share the nature of all products of our thinking their sharp limitation and distinction, their precise equality belongs to their abstract character.”If ‘atoms’ are ‘not observed…themselves’ and are ‘inferences of our thinking’… how are they ‘material’?
Of course, I agree with Pannekoek’s position, which follows Marx’s.
Our world (which is both ‘ideal’ and ‘material’) is our socio-historical product, and thus we can change it.
MovimientoSocialista wrote: “Lenin knew that it was impossible to establish socialism in an economical backward society, and that capitalism must be developed first… ”
Marx disagreed. Marx argued for human creativity, not economic determinism (in philosophical terms, for ‘freedom’, not ‘necessity’). Marx supported those who regarded it as possible to build socialism upon the Russian Mir (peasant commune). That is, Marx agreed with the so-called ‘idealists’ (the term Plekhanov the materialist used to condemn his political enemies, the ‘Narodniks’), against the so-called ‘materialists’.
See:
‘Marx and Russia: The fate of a doctrine’, by James D. White
‘Late Marx and the Russian Road’ by Teodor Shanin.Wez wrote: “What are your thoughts on the ‘Enlightenment’? Is it essentially bourgeois ideology or a triumph of reason and science?”
This is the key question.
Is ‘reason and science’ outside of ‘bourgeois ideology’?
If the answer is ‘yes’, where does that leave Marx’s ideology of ‘modes of production’?
On my part, I regard the ‘Enlightenment’ as a fundamental part of the emergence of capitalism, and so, that ‘reason and science’ are not universal truths, but ‘bourgeois reason’ and ‘bourgeois science’, and are both socio-historical products, that we can change.
DJP wrote: “Evolutionary biology is capitalist ideology as it contradicts the supreme proletarian teachings on LBirdian idealism-materialism.”
I know that you’re averse to discussion, DJP, but perhaps this might help you understand the debate:
I especially recommend chapter 6.
Thomas More wrote: “Dead nature? I would be interested in reading the avian’s view of how life began on Earth. At some point, he must concede, the “inanimate” became animate.”
“Dead nature” and “Inanimate nature” are ideological synonyms, Thomas.
If you choose to believe that “animate” emerged from “inanimate” (ie. ‘living nature’ from ‘dead nature’), that’s your ideological choice. But to ‘concede’ this, whether by human or by avian, is to have the preceding belief. Then, all ‘evidence’ will be chosen to confirm that belief.
Thomas More wrote: “Like it or not (and I like it, being without prejudice), the ancestor of both avians and Marxists was … mud!”
‘Liking’ is a ‘prejudice’, Thomas.
My ‘prejudice’ was also Marx’s: the ancestor of humans was humans, and their historic and changeable social production, producing both consciousness and being.
Good luck with the ‘mud ideology’!
If comrades wish to call Marx’s ‘ideal-material’ (mind-matter) ‘stardust’, that’s fine by me.
As long as we’re talking about ‘conscious activity’ by humans, social production of our nature, we’ll all get along just fine.
The problems start when the 18th century bourgeois ideology of ‘matter’ (dead nature, conscious-less stuff) is chosen to be employed.
What’s more, even the bourgeois ideologists have moved on. For example, see this week’s article in The Grauniad:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physics-particles-physicists
Hiya, BD, point of order on ‘rascal’, it’s usually ‘scally’ round these parts!
Yeah, you’re right of course… any mention of ‘matter in motion’ is like a red rag to a bull.
Marx never used that term, or even that concept.
Marx’s big thing was ‘social production’. Which requires ‘consciousness’, which he never reduced to ‘matter’.
But try telling that to the ‘materialists’, and contradicting their ‘rock and mud’ fetish!
Thomas More wrote: “Spiritus means breath, and breath is material.”
And ‘material’, according to Marx, meant something like ‘relevant’ to human production.
A bit like a ‘material fact’ in a courtroom.
It certainly doesn’t mean ‘matter’ (ie. only stuff humans can touch, etc.)
So, ‘material’ is nothing to do with the outdated ideology of ‘matter in motion’. Modern physics has completely undermined that conceptual construct.
I’m trying to discuss the philosophy of maths with you, Lew.
If you think that’s ‘nonsense’, fair enough, but don’t pretend that your apparent inability to discuss the topic of this thread is caused by me.
I’m trying to find out why you think that it’s possible that in a socialist society (which can only exist after a mass, democratic, active movement has built it) ‘people may decide to … accept maths and logic as objectively given’.
The existence of socialism would be evidence that ‘people’ had freely chosen to socially produce their own objects, including maths and logic.
If you adhere to an ideology that ‘maths and logic’ will determine ‘people’ and their ‘objects’, just say so.
But if you admit this, it’s the end for any form of ‘socialism’ based upon democratic mass activity, and will be the result of an elite party who’ll claim to be ‘building socialism’ FOR the masses.
It’s Leninism, Lew.
Indeed, Cyber-Leninism.
Lew admits writing: “…accept maths and logic as objectively given.”
How does the ‘object’ ‘give’ to you, Lew?
This claim means that the ‘object’ is active, and you are passive.
And passive ‘acceptance’ of socio-historical products like ‘maths and logic’ would mean that you accept what an elite minority have produced, in their own interests and for their own purposes.
What are the politics and philosophy behind passive acceptance by the majority of the beliefs of a small minority? It sounds like religion or conservativism (or those ‘scientists’ espousing either or both, in favour of their own elite beliefs).
On the contrary, democratic communists and Marxists would stress the need for the majority to become active in all areas of social production, and help to change those social products in favour of our interests and purposes. Science, maths, logic, objects, have to be produced to create our socialist world. We can change our world.
