[LBird]

twc wrote:

With a contemptuous snort, you defend GOTO programming, five decades after Dijkstra² considered it harmful.

LBird, post #280, wrote:

I know, I've had to unravel the shite; fuckin' "GO TO's", they destroy logic.

I'm beginning to think that you're unhinged.

[LBird]

We're going round in circles, twc.You still haven't said whether you think 'ideas' are 'material'.As for your assertion that "no serious developer writes GO TO's"… it makes me wonder if you live in our world.As for your 'object-oriented analogy', you haven't answered my point that humans create both 'objects' and 'classes'.But then, you don't do discussion, do you? Just keep moving the goal-posts, throwing in a load of irrelevent references to other issues……you introduced programming, and have failed to respond to my points. As usual.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Absolutely lucky! Jackson is ancient history.

Michael Jackson? In music, computers and military!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_A._Jacksonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_JacksonIf anyone needs a link to the first, I pity you.

twc wrote:

Being forced to submit to it must have been hell. No human creativity in that.

Without theory, computer programs are like spaghetti. Creativity without theory is meaningless. I know, I've had to unravel the shite; fuckin' "GO TO's", they destroy logic.I don't work in computers anymore, so 'Siri' will remain a mystery to me, thankfully, comrade.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Surely, if you were once an object-oriented software developer, you comprehend, in your creative bones, the distinction between classes and objects — between abstraction and concrete implementation.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere, comrade!Yes, 'classes' are theoretical ideas created by humans, in abstraction.Yes, 'objects' are practical things created by humans, in concrete implementation.Conscious, active, creative humans producing their world! Theory and practice!None of that 19th century 'materialist' nonsense about 'objects' telling humans what the 'object' is, because 'classes' are a 'reflection' of 'objects' (as for Lenin, and, sometimes, Engels).Yes, I was a DEVELOPER. A socialised human, stuffed full of social theories of software development (like Jackson Structured Programming) , handed computer terminals, servers and mainframes created by society, and my creative role was to produce software, which didn't exist prior to my producing of it! By theory and practice, using social knowledge and social tools!I never once had a piece of hardware which spoke to me.You're so lucky, twc!

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Over the posts, you've changed your cherished position from idealism to syncretism; from fiercly repudiating anything written by non-Communists [as if anyone could trust Communists] to lovingly quoting them [not just Pareto, but the trio of philosophers of science, Carr, and even Popper of all people, the arch anti-Marxist]; and now Marx, whom you once relied on for irrefutable quotes, is now contemptuously condemned for being irredeemably vague and contradictory.You are the Pareto chameleon.

I've tried to prompt a discussion, twc. And I'm all for workers reading as widely as possible, in their attempts to understand our world, natural and social. But your latest post is just childish name-calling. Carr is even quoted by SPGB members as a useful source of critical thinking, and Popper was one of the earliest thinkers to attack the smugness of bourgeois positivist and inductivist 19th century science. And given that Popper was attacking a straw-man of what he regarded as Marxism (actually Stalinism), his 'anti-Marxist' views can be taken with a pinch of salt. Popper knew nothing of Marx's actual views.

twc wrote:

I fail to see any point in my participation here if you, and apparently others, can't understand a thing I'm writing.

Yes, I'm coming to this conclusion about your participation, too.How some other SPGB members regard you as a useful 'defender of Historical Materialism' baffles me.This, to me, is becoming a wider issue than that of one poor poster. If you really are some sort of 'guru' for the SPGB on these issues, I'm very worried.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Why does it matter?

Because I think its important, and so I'm asking you a question, and you're not giving me an answer.Quite frankly, twc, reading your posts is like reading Marx. And anyone who knows my views will also know that is not a compliment.I could draw both conclusions from your post, that 'ideas are material' and 'ideas are not material'.I agree with Pareto's observation about Marx's writings:

Pareto wrote:

Marx's words are like bats. One can see in them both birds and mice.

This is a real problem, because for over a century 'Marxists' have been quoting Marx and Engels at workers, who haven't the foggiest idea what they really mean. It's too easy to draw opposite conclusions from the same texts.Unless we start to answer questions, in the terms and language posed, rather than blathering on about 'dialectics' and 'concrete', we'll remain isolated.I've read Bhaskar, Schaff, et al, and I'd like to critically discuss them (and Lakatos, Kuhn and Feyerabend), but I still don't understand a word you write about them or anything else.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Written in haste, without necessary correction.

More like 'written in full, without necessary editing'.So, twc, for you, are 'thoughts' and 'ideas' material?A 'one-line' answer will suffice, comrade.[perchance a 'one-word' answer, but we must be grateful for small mercies, I suppose]

[LBird]

twc wrote:

So please explain:If the social superstructure is pure bias, how that pure bias comes about.Why anyone should support the pure socialist bias.

No-one's arguing this, twc.If you don't understand the arguments being made, why not ask for clarification?You're merely building a straw man of your own imagination, and destroying it to your own satisfaction.For my part, I want a discussion.I've asked you to explain what you mean by 'material', so I'm asking questions. I think you mean 'physical' or 'tangible' by your use of 'material', but I might be wrong, so I'm asking you to clarify before I go on to discuss that assumption.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

This makes my central, but contrary, point in this thread. If everything is opinion, or bias, or ideology, then we are all as much opinionated, biased and ideological as the next.

If only things were this simple.This either/or view of the world is as much use as a good guy/bad guy or cowboys/indians dichotomous view.If the SPGB wears the white hats, then, ipso facto, everyone who criticises or argues with an existing SPGB position/principle/stance, clearly dons a black hat.It's becoming clear to me why twc doesn't do discussion, like about 'materialism', because any raising of questions and searching for answers is a sign of weakness to those who already know The Answer.It's not attractive.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Materialist Marx

twc wrote:

Because the charge has been laid by an avowed anti-materialist, it is worth pointing out that class ideology can only be a materialist position, along the lines that social condition determines social ideology.

The bold text is present in my original but was omitted in your copy, and was dodged by you in your “improved” rephrasing.  The bold text explains precisely why I made the claim.In case that alone wasn’t sufficiently convincing, I elaborated as follows….I finally pointed out that these were the hot-topic political considerations that turned the boy Marx into the materialist we should know today. …

Yes, but my point was to ask you what 'materialism' means to you, twc.

LBird wrote:

I would really like to discuss this meaning of 'materialism' with you, twc.

I think Marx was a Realist, and not a Materialist.That is, he wasn't a 19th century, mechanical, crude, materialist.He unified aspects of both materialism and idealism (its 'active side'), and produced a new unified view of 'theory and practice'. This is not simple 'materialism', and if the term 'materialism' continues to be used, then 'why?'.Marx wasn't a 'materialist', of the sort that means jettisoning the 'active side' of idealism.Can we discuss what you mean by 'materialist', twc?I think thought is as real as rock. So, if by 'material conditions', you mean 'ideas and circumstances', 'consciousness and nature', then we agree.If 'material' does not also signify and encompass 'ideas' to you, twc, can you say so, and we can progress this discussion?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Marx was a materialist, though not of the 'crude' kind…

So, you agree that consciousness and nature are in a unity, and so we can't say that the 'material' determines any more than the 'ideal' does? That is, humans are not the hostages of 'conditions', and can creatively change the 'material'.'Crude materialism' constantly stresses the 'economic base' as the determinant 'in the final analysis'. This is Engelsism.'Realism' (non-crude materialism?) stresses that both consciousness/ideology and nature/economics can be determinant, and that we must examine both, giving them the same weight in our considerations.I think that those comrades influenced unduly by Engels always return to 'the final analysis'. Which never comes.

DJP wrote:

This talk of idealism-materialism really doesn't make sense.

It does as a didactic tool to try to illustrate and contrast Marx's 'materialism' with the preceding 'materialism'.If the earlier materialism was the 'crude kind', why keep the term as a singular representation of Marx's new materialism? He clearly saw some value in 'idealism', as the 'active side'.It makes more sense, as I've argued, to find a new term (which clearly differentiates it from earlier 'crude' materialism, which Engels returned to, and is the source of our current difficulties). The term 'realism' fits this demand well, IMO.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

You're really garbling things up here. No wonder this discussion goes round in circles.

Well, giving formal definitions and ignoring the context of trying to understand Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, is one way of concluding things.I take it that you're a 'materialist', like twc, and unlike me and Marx, who agree that 'idealism' developed the 'active side'.Marx was a realist. He united aspects of materialism and idealism.The return to 'materialism' is a retrograde step.I know that you'll pay lip service to the Theses, and then insist that the 'material' is the basis. It isn't. Thought is real, too.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Because the charge has been laid by an avowed anti-materialist, it is worth pointing out that class ideology can only be a materialist position…

twc, in line with our new comradely understanding, I'd like to discuss what you mean by 'materialist'.In my opinion, there is ample evidence that Marx wasn't a 'materialist' (in the 19th century meaning of that word), but an 'idealist-materialist'.I think that most Marxists pay lip service to Marx's statement that 'ideas can become a material force', but when pressed return to old-fashioned 'materialism'. I think that the cause of this is Engels' muddled philosophising, about 'materialism versus idealism'. In my opinion, Marx united materialism and idealism into a philosophy of 'theory and practice'.I also think that the modern term 'realism' would be better employed by Marxists, because this better captures the unity of materialism and idealism. It is a commonplace in realist though that 'ideas are real', and I think other comrades here have previously supported that stance.So, I don't consider criticism of 'materialism' to be 'avowed anti-materialist', but to, like Marx, also stress 'the active side' of 'idealism'. I would amend your statement above to:"it is worth pointing out that class ideology can only be a materialist and idealist position";or, better still:"it is worth pointing out that class ideology can only be a realist position".I would really like to discuss this meaning of 'materialism' with you, twc.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

That being the case, Steve, I’ll bow out of the forum.

You still don't get it, do you, twc?No-one wants you to 'bow out', because you have plenty of knowledge which could help us all to learn more about this subject.But… it's a 'forum' for discussion, rather than a 'notice board', where you simply post your thoughts at great length without any discrimination at all, and the rest of us just passively read 'pearls of wisdom'.Here's a tip: try posting on a single subject, within a few lines, and then reply to questions others ask of that post. Y'know, interaction.Just 'brain-dumping' decades of reading, stretching over hundreds of years of thought, into a long post, is not discussion.You have a valuable asset, but it must be critically interrogated

[LBird]

twc wrote:

My knowledge simply comes from a lifetime interest in reading everything I could on socialism…

The bit you've missed is 'critically', twc. For a socialist, it should be '…in critically reading…'.You simply regurgitate texts. You don't discuss them, which would require a critical turn of mind, and an open admission of one's critical viewpoint, the stance or perspective one takes when applying criticism to a text.I've tried to help.

[Author]

Posts