[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

I assume this is view of the Socialist Party…. “Mans outlook is not just a reflection of economic conditions. Social development is the result of mans action on circumstances. Economic conditions develop certain ideas in the mind of men which move them to alter their conditions – and so the process goes on. As we have already mentioned man makes his own history but only out of the conditions that are to his hand. It is reciprocal – man and conditions acting upon each other.” …. 

[my altered bold]Vin, can I comment on this party view?It is contradictory while the bolded part stands.It needs to read "Humanity develops certain ideas in its mind regarding economics conditions…"The active factor, as rightly stressed in most of the quote, is "Men" (ie. humanity).The active factor is not 'economic conditions'. Thus, it can't be 'reciprocal'. 'Conditions' do not act upon humans; humans act within the constraints of their 'conditions'.Humans are the creative, active element. That is why we can 'change the world', as opposed to passively being 'developed' by it.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Marxian materialism is a scientific abstraction from experience. Unlike a metaphysical assumption, it is scientifically testable, and so vulnerable to rejection.

You're just displaying your ignorance, now, twc.All science contains 'metaphysical assumptions' (or an 'ontology'), that are 'untestable' and thus are 'unrejectable'.This is as true of physics as of sociology. That's the problem with 'science', for humans.'Abstraction' does not come from experience (ie. induction, or 'practice and theory'), but is a human creative act of imaginative, abstractive, thinking and must be followed by the testing of that 'creation' upon 'reality' (ie. 'theory and practice') to produce 'knowledge'. That 'knowledge' is not a 'copy' of reality, but contains human factors.The vast majority of 20th century philosophy of science agrees with this process of human understanding of reality. Reality does not expose itself to passive humans (and Marx and the Ancient Greeks thought it didn't), but must be actively sought by humans employing theory.If your version of 'Marxism' purports to 'abstract from experience', it's nonsense.Only if Marx was right about 'theory and practice' (and not your 'practice and theory') do his ideas make sense in the light of the last 100 years of human thought.Oh, sorry… you're still in the 19th century, aren't you? 'Materialism'? Just Lenin's reflection theory of knowledge and naive realism, in truth.Now, carry on with your pathetic insults. And keep playing with the mud pies. And listen carefully to your 'experience' with the rocks, twc… you're right about that, at least. Given your level of development, they can teach you a thing or two.Why don't you let the rest of us get on with the 21st century? Muppet. In a Victorian top hat.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

'Materialism' can't explain 'ideas'.If it can, why isn't it called 'materialism-idealism'? Why the stress upon the 'material', to the denial of 'ideas'?

It just plainly seems you haven't understood what is meant by "materialism""Materialism" isn't an explanation but a metaphysical assumption.To me it seems that there are plenty of materialist / physicalist theories that explain "ideas" better than any of the others going. I have to admit that at the minute Dennett is a favourite."Materialism" doesn't deny ideas, it just presumes that these are just one of the many facets of the material / physical world (whatever the material / physical world may be). You may as well say "Why not call it materialism-idealism-electromagnetism-etc-etc?"

Perhaps the problem, DJP, is that you haven't understood what I mean by "idealism-materialism".If ' "materialism" doesn't deny ideas' (and I think the problem is that 'materialists' do deny ideas!), why call it 'materialism'?If one should not call it a string of words ("materialism-idealism-electromagnetism-etc-etc"), and just call it one of them, why plump for 'materialism', rather than 'idealism' or 'electromagnetism' or 'etc-etc-ism'?The reason 'materialism' is chosen to is give the 'material' a pre-eminence over the 'ideal'.For my part, I choose the term 'idealism-materialism' to emphasise Marx's 'theory and practice', which requires both human ideas and an external reality for humans to act upon. This term is chosen in the context of a discussion of Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, because 'ideal' and 'material' are the terms used within that text.The 'materialists' choose their term to deny 'democratic control' of politics and science, because if they have a 'neutral theory' which tells them the 'truth' of nature and society, that 'neutral method' can be applied by a knowing minority (ie. 'scientists' or a 'cadre-party'), who are thus outside of the control of the rest of humanity.I think science, as a human activity, is infected with politics, ideology, morality, consciousness (and all the defects of humans, like lies and bullying), and so the role of 'ideas' is inescapable.The use of the term 'material' tries to hide the reality of human ideas in understanding 'external reality'.So, in this context, 'materialism-idealism' (or, 'idealism-materialism') it is!

[LBird]

twc wrote:

…non-materialist science…

One fine day, twc, you'll actually read and respond to what other comrades are actually writing, rather than making up a straw man of your own to knock it down.This phrase is just another example of your forcing anything that is not pure 'materialist' into a 'non-materialist' category. You are merely copying Engels. And only the most mistaken part, at that.The rest of your post is contemptible.

[LBird]

twc, I gave up trying to reason with you, after many attempts.

[LBird]

Yeah, it is funny.And truthful. Communism can only come about if the majority of humans on this planet want it. So, 50%, at least.The alternative is to accept that a minority, under 50%, can bring Communism. That minority is never specified, but what is, is that that minority have the correct idea, given them by 'material reality', the understanding of which does not require human ideas and input (ie. democratic control). Thus, the minority can be 10%, 5%, 1%… but since they know the Truth, they have the right to assume control.If the alternative is minority control, give me an SPGB Prime Minister refusing power, after receiving 49% of the vote.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

So how did Lenin and the Bolsheviks apply their materialism to the conditions in Russia? Give me your explanation! No answers – Paxman signing out

So, once again, you're not interested in the topic of this thread, about how 'morality' (a human idea) fits into Marxist (idealism-materialism, theory and practice) explanations of social and political issues, especially 'socialism'?Because you and twc are unable to discuss philosophy, you revert to well-worn 'issues' like 'Russia in 1917'.These issues, about morality, ideas, science, etc. are philosophical, not about Tsarist Russia. They apply to both our understanding of the past and of the future.Whilst comrades continue to focus on '1917', we will remain marginal to today's issues.Especially to the issue of 'morality' within the Communist movement today, and future 'morality' within a Communist society.The rocks will not tell us those answers.Those answers lie in us, not 'material conditions'. The belief that 'material conditions' will form human morality is a Leninist myth. Witness the 20th century.

[LBird]

Vin, since Marx's 'idealism-materialism' does not 'ignore material conditions' and clearly 'takes material conditions into consideration', why do you insist you are a 'materialist'? And, if it doesn't 'ignore ideas' and does 'take ideas into account', why call it mere 'materialism'?Marx was an 'idealist-materialist', who argued for 'theory and practice'.'Materialism' can't explain 'ideas'.If it can, why isn't it called 'materialism-idealism'? Why the stress upon the 'material', to the denial of 'ideas'?Where did you get your ideology of 'materialism' from, Vin? I've argued that you've picked it up from Engels, and shown that Engels differed from Marx, and that Engels himself, when pressed, wasn't a 'materialist'.How do 'material conditions' take precedence over 'ideas'? Do those 'material conditions' require explanation? Doesn't explanation require ideas and human creativity? Or do 'material conditions' themselves tell passive humans what those 'material conditions' are?

[LBird]

twc continues to insist that if one isn't a 'materialist', one must be an 'idealist' (or, as a synonym, an 'anti-materialist' or a 'non-materialist').I've lost count of the number of time that I've shown that this simplistic, two-fold model is a creation of Engels.There are more than two options. Even Engels' own muddled texts show this.One can be something other than a simple 'materialist' and still not be an 'idealist' (or an 'anti-materialist' or a 'non-materialist').Marx, for example, was an 'idealist-materialist'. He argued for 'theory and practice', so both 'ideas' and 'nature' are required. Neither has a more fundamental role than the other. Ideas are as important as 'material' conditions.And given the central role of creative human ideas (in conjunction with nature) in building our understanding of our world (social and natural), the role of human 'morality' cannot be excluded from either politics or science.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

But you still avoid answering any of my questions!!So in the spirit of Paxman I will ask you another:  Lenin and the bolshivics were guided by 'crude materialism'? Yes or no?

Vin, I'm trying to explain. Patiently. I'm not trying to 'avoid' your questions, but trying to tell you why you are asking them in the form you are doing.Since Engels, 'Marxism' has consisted of 'materialism'. This includes, but is not restricted to, Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Marx himself rejected this 'materialism'. Engels clearly didn't understand what it was.If you want to call that 'crude materialism', then your answer is 'yes', but simple 'materialism' is more accurate.Marx wasn't a 'materialist'. That means his ideas are still useful today, when discussing the philosophy of science.If Marx is declared a 'materialist', his ideas are useless.If you consider Marx a materialist, and don't want to discuss why he isn't, that's fine by me. Just ignore what I write, and leave the discussion to those who have an interest in understanding why Marx wasn't a materialist.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

As you say I need to read some philosophy of science but perhaps you can enlighten me

And I'm trying my best to help any comrade who's interested in these issues to circumvent years of reading, by trying to summarise and explain by analogy some difficult issues!But, it requires a willingness to discuss, rather than just keep reiterating old ideas from Engels.For example,

Vin Maratty wrote:

…in the materialist SPGB opposing the idealists…

Your dichotomous approach of 'materialists' versus 'idealists' is meaningless.This ideology that you hold causes you, when I state that I'm not a 'materialist', to think that therefore I must be an 'idealist'. You get this ideology from Engels, who is the source of this 'either/or' view of philosophy.I've tried time and again to explain this, and I've told you where Engels says this, and told you that on the very next page that Engels himself goes on to mention a third category (agnostics).So, if you wish to hold on to the 'materialist/idealist' scheme, you have to explain why you hold onto it, in the face of evidence that Engels (its alleged originator) actually didn't hold to it himself. In fact, it's Lenin who is the real source of this nonsense, and he used judicious quotes from Engels to 'prove' his (ie. Lenin's) 'materialism'.But if we read Engels, we find that Lenin was selectively quoting Fred to bolster his own philosophy, especially his political philosophy.These issues are not merely 'pie-in-the-sky' debates about 'angels on pinheads', but are fundamentally about whether Lenin was following Marx and Engels. If he was, we're f*cked.It's my opinion that Lenin wasn't, and this opinion is based upon Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, which (to me, at least) show that Marx wasn't a 'materialist', (which Lenin was), and that Marx saw the need for the 'active side' of idealist philosophers (Kant, Hegel) to be added to the 'passive side' of crude 'materialism'.Now, Vin, if you want more information/explanation/quotes/discussion, that's fine by me, and I'll try to help.But if you want to stick to 'materialism/idealism', that's fine by me, too. But I can't help, in that case.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

After all, one of your assertions is that theory determines the facts you use.

Vin, I've spent several months and several threads explaining in detail, giving quotes from dozens of sources, with links, and tried to use analogies to help comrades get to grips with these issues.The statement you call an 'assertion' is a completely uncontroversial, well-proved, totally accepted view of almost everybody who has read any philosophy of science.Even ALB gave Carr's 'fisher/fish' analogy on one thread. It's accepted by the SPGB. Einstein argued it in the early 20th century, and he's a physicist.The fact that you think it a mere 'assertion' is one for you to worry about, not me.

Vin Maratty wrote:

You take up a 'moral' position then attack materialists as potential dictators and murderers.

'Potential'? Where were you during the 20th century, Vin?

Vin Maratty wrote:

It allows you to condem me as immoral, uncaring etc. This is simply not true.

I have never condemned you as 'immoral' or 'uncaring'. I don't think you are at all. I accept you as a comrade, which is why I keep perservering.What I do 'condemn' you for is not reading philosophy of science, and taking Engels' 'materialism' at face value.

[LBird]

The simple truth is that, if humans are involved in an activity, whether political (socialism or fascism), or whether scientific (physics or sociology), then 'morality' plays a part.To argue otherwise is to return to 19th century philosophical beliefs, which are now outdated.The comrades who try to ignore this are basing their beliefs on Engels' misreading of Marx. And Marx is also partially to blame, for his often inpenetrable texts, which can legitimately (but wrongly) be interpreted the way Engels sometimes did.Neither Marx nor Engels are consistent, and both can be read to support 19th century positivist science. But the works of both also contain arguments antithetical to naive materialism and reflection theory of knowledge, which is the basis of Lenin's philosophical 'leadership' of the working class.Whilst any SPGB members are looking to crude 'materialism', they are philosophically at odds with the SPGB emphasis upon 'democracy'.Crude 'materialism' leads to minority 'truth', both in politics and science.This has no place in the 21st century, as the 20th century has already shown.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Lbird. Why don't you try backing your theory up with some facts?

Vin. Why don't you try telling us your theory that determines your 'facts'?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

The religious certainty of the 'materialists' leaves no room for doubt or discussion. For them, the Truth is Concrete. No if or buts, or any nonsense about active, creative human minds, or conscious theory.

BULLSHIT

Yeah, it's always about the 'material', even if it is just poo.

[Author]

Posts