[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Ah well. Interesting while it lasted Every thread ends up with the same discussion

Unfortunately, Vin, to discuss 'value' is to discuss 'angels'.The bourgeois economists regard Marx's concept of value as akin to discussing angels. Even Marx said, as I quoted before, that there is no 'matter' in value; we can add, just like in angels, which also don't contain 'matter'.Doesn't this present a worthwhile discussion? As ALB suggested out, has the human race 'painted itself into a corner' so that we can't scientifically discriminate between value and angels?I think we can, as I've argued on other threads, but it's not through adhering to Engelsian positivism and the Leninist Party, but through adopting a democratic method.In effect, we proletarians can vote angels out of scientific consideration. But we need a society like Communism to allow this to happen, both in the 'voting' sense and in the 'development of humans away from gods' sense.Still, I'm sorry that you feel the way you do, comrade. I'm sure others do, too.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

That was the corner I thought you'd end painting yourself into !

It's not 'me' that's 'painted itself into this corner', but the human race!

ALB wrote:

Just thought. Maybe we should start a thread on "Did angels ever exist, and how many of them could have danced on a pinhead?"

Marked "For the Attention Of" which society? That must be included!

ALB wrote:

But we've been here before too. So back to surplus value.

Ahhh… questions of 'Value'.Marked "For the Attention Of" which class?FAO Proletariat.There is no special position of observation in the universe of physics which does not require an FAO. To question is to mark FAO.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

But we been here before a number of times now.

Yeah, but I don't seem to be able to get to the bottom of our thoughts.Perhaps I'm moving away from Pannekoek, because I'm starting to see contradictions in what he says in this extract, as compared with what he says in Lenin as Philosopher.Further, I've since discovered Marx's views on the social nature of 'sense-impressions', which adds to my disagreement with Pannekoek's statement that "The impressions of the world penetrate the human mind as a continuous stream". Following Marx, we should argue that only those 'sense-impressions' that are selected by humans (using a social theory) are allowed to 'penetrate'. Thus, it would be a selective, discontinuous, incomplete, 'stream'.In fact, it would be a world crafted by human understanding. Which leads me to:

Panneokoek wrote:

Although fanciful objects of these thoughts such as angels, spirits or an Absolute Idea do not belong to it [the real world], the belief in such ideas is a real phenomenon, and may have a notable influence on historical events.

If belief is 'real' and influences events, to all intents and purposes, then, 'angels, spirits or an Absolute Idea' must belong to the 'real world'.What is the difference between the 'idea of an angel', if 'real', and 'an angel in the real world'?This can only be resolved if we argue that the 'real world' we experience is a human creation, and humans can get this 'created world' wrong, according to other humans, employing other social theories.That is, 'angels' exist for some societies, but not for others.At least it will make sense of the 'devils' of Stalinism!

[LBird]

Perhaps these two conflicting positions can be illustrated as:Small minority consciousness – revolutionary process which extends consciousness – revolutionary act by larger minority – majority consciousnessSmall minority consciousness – revolutionary process which extends consciousness – majority consciousness – revolutionary act by majorityI think we all accept that at some point class conscious communists are in a minority, and that eventually the whole class has to be conscious. But who carries out the 'revolutionary act': a party or the class?I think I favour the latter, class majority, not the former, party large minority.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

…ideas obviously come from humans as only humans have ideas…

Yes, the source of ideas is humans.

ALB wrote:

… but the content of these ideas comes from material conditions, i.e. human mind is entirely determined by the surrounding real world.

No, this contradicts the previous half of the statement.You're playing with words, ALB.What are 'ideas' if not 'the content of ideas'? How can an 'idea' not have 'content'?Ideas come from humans, not 'the surrounding real world'. These ideas are then tested in practice upon 'the surrounding real world'. If the human ideas seem to fit the 'real world', they are then adopted as 'true'. But 'human ideas' can be wrong, even after they seem to fit with practice and are deemed to be true. That's why 'truth' has a history. Without this stance, 'truth' must be eternal once 'discovered', which science now knows to be untrue. Truth is a social construct, not a reflection of 'reality' which humans passively induct.Humans are not puppets of some external force. That notion provides the basis for the Leninist Party.The concept that the 'real world determines human ideas' is Engelsian and 19th century positivist.The concept that 'human ideas are tested against the real world through practice' is Marxian and 21st century critical.Furthermore, one's understanding of 'value' will be determined by one's view of this relationship between human ideas and the 'real world'. 'Value' is a social construct which humans use to explain exploitation.

Marx, Capital I, p. 138, wrote:

Not an atom of matter enters into the objectivity of commodities as values; in this it is the direct opposite of the coarsely sensuous objectivity of commodities as physical objects.

'Value' is the creation of human understanding, using the stance of the social-objectivity of the proletariat. It is proven by the sensuous activity of humans with the physical objects.'Value' does not exist from the stance of the bourgeoisie. There is no universal, objective, vantage point from which to understand the world, neither for physics nor for socio-economics.With the end of the proletariat, 'value' will disappear. It is a social and historical construct.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Funny you should say that but isn't that what the religious nuts told us would happen if the world was run by athiests?

Is this the source of our disagreement, Vin?Do you identify 'justice and morality' with 'religion'?If you do, I don't. Perhaps that is why we are talking at crossed purposes, comrade?

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

'Justice' and 'morality' has been used to control people throughout history. You are suggesting a proletarian 'justice' and morality'.No thanks!

More 'transhistorical' thinking!The point, Vin, is whose 'justice and morality' has been used to control?Furthermore, if 'justice and morality' is not our 'proletarian justice and morality', where does it come from?Or, doesn't 'justice and morality' exist? Perhaps we should hand over society, after the 'Glorious Day', to the robots, and avoid those pesky humans altogether?

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

'class' is of interest to the working class, as is 'surplus value'; they are related to the material basis of today's society but what of 'justice' and 'morality'??

So, 'justice' and 'morality' must be related to today's society. Hence, they are class products. Their 'justice and morality' is not our 'justice and morality'.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

Ideas are not 'created by' 'material conditions';

then where do they come from?  Unless you are suggesting  

LBird wrote:

The planet Morality? God? Priests with special knowledge? The Leninist Party of Professional Revolutionaries Who Know All? 

 You cannot be saying that the brain and its ideas are not part of the material conditions of existence?  

As I've already said, Vin, it all depends upon how one defines 'material conditions'.If one means that 'human creativity and ideas' are a 'material condition', then I agree.But, having said that, we can never return to positivist nonsense about passive scientists observing nature. It's the end of Engels' erroneous amateurish philosophy. Humans create our knowledge, scientific and moral.However, if this 'agreement' is a Trojan Horse for superficially accepting 'mind' as equating to a 'material condition', and then saying that a 'rock' is also a 'material condition', and so that 'material conditions of all sorts' think and criticise and tell humans things (as 'discovery scientists' insist), then the key difference between the conscious and the non-conscious has again been obliterated.We, as Pannekoek insisted, create the Laws of Nature. Nature does not reveal itself to a passive humanity, as common sense science insists, even today.That is what is at stake in this 'agreement' about 'mind' being a 'material condition'. Rocks don't think; human minds do.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Vin Maratty wrote:

Well, as a Marxist I believe ALL ideas come from material conditions …

Well, as a Marxist, too, I believe ALL ideas come from humans.

These two statements are not contradictory.

Depending upon the interpretation of 'come from' which is accepted, they can be.If 'come from' means 'created by', then they are contradictory.Ideas are not 'created by' 'material conditions'; 'material conditions' are interpreted (or given meaning) by humans, who create ideas and by practice see if these ideas 'fit' the 'material conditions'. Of course, the determination of 'fit' is also a human decision, and the same 'material conditions' can be interpreted differently by different groups of humans, especially classes.The notion that 'material conditions' create ideas and transfer them to humans is positivism. It requires a passive conception of humanity. It doesn't take much to see why this view of 'material conditions' giving orders to passive humans suits the Leninist ideology so well.Of course, 'material conditions' do nothing of the sort, and so a Party is required to actually think for humanity, whose alleged passivity must thus be enforced.Repeat after Commissar MatConvitch, comrade convict, 'Rocks know best…'

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Well, as a Marxist I believe ALL ideas come from material conditions …

Well, as a Marxist, too, I believe ALL ideas come from humans.I think you are confusing Engels' philosophical ideas with Marx's.Perhaps this is the real discussion that we all need to have, Vin. It's creeping into every thread, mostly (but not entirely) due to me, I admit.For me, I'll only accept your proposition when it can be shown that even ONE idea (never mind 'ALL') has come from material conditions (or 'rocks', as they are better known). Humans produce ideas – some 'fit', some don't.There is an interesting discussion to be had about why some ideas 'fit' (and who defines 'fit'), but the ideas originate in human creativity, not inanimate, unconscious 'matter'.Rocks don't do dialogue, comrade.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Well, yes, sure there is a biological basis to this in the sense that obviously consciousness – in this case , awareness of ourselves as individuals – is dependent on the brain.

But 'consciousness' or 'awareness' doesn't necessarily mean 'individuality'.The fact that you are interpreting this as 'individuality' is a social product of your experience in this society, and, I would argue, ruling class ideas.But, I won't keep labouring the point: I've given some pointers to societies which interpret this differently, and I'll leave the issue alone, now. Thanks for the comradely discussion, robbo!

[LBird]

gnome wrote:

The seemingly different results as indicated by the 2010 Conference resolution and the subsequent Party Poll later the same year merely serves to indicate that within the Party, as elsewhere, providing the 'right' question is asked the 'right' answer can be obtained.

Yeah, it's the old 'plebiscite' problem. And proof that 'theory determines what counts as a fact'!Humans, eh? I'm sure that we Communists are going to have to factor them into our considerations one day.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Not sure what you are saying. Exploitation is immoral from the point of view of the exploited but moral from the point of view of the exploiters? So morality is an expression/reflection of class interests ? That means it is morally OK for me to extract surplus value if I come into money but it becomes immoral if I go bust?

Does this all come as a surprise, Vin? That 'morality' is socially-based?

Vin Maratty wrote:

I apologise if I sound facetious but it is not my intention, comrade

No, you don't sound 'facetious', Vin, just bewildered! If morality doesn't come from society (and hence, for us, classes), from where does it originate?The planet Morality? God? Priests with special knowledge? The Leninist Party of Professional Revolutionaries Who Know All?You're not going to tell us it's those with access to 'Scientific Socialism (TM Messrs Engels & Lenin)' who also know about 'Scientific Morality', are you, Vin?I apologise for my facetiousness, Vin. It's a fair cop.Exploitation is a moral category, used to explain to humans the motions of wealth from the workers who create it, to the bosses who appropriate it. By the way, 'workers' and 'bosses' are moral categories, too.If this is bad news for you, I'm sorry, comrade. The sooner we get away from 'hard economics' (and rocks talking to us, as for DiaMat-ists), the better. Humans are involved, in every sense, comrade: materially, ideologically, morally.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Is the Extraction of Surplus Value Immoral?

From the point of view of which class?From the point of view of the bourgeoisie, no.From the point of view of the proletariat, yes.Morality is a product of humans and their society, not something handed down from outside society, eg., by a 'god'. There are no universal moral ideals.Thus, 'exploitation is immoral'.Humans make the rules, not 'the concrete', 'the material', or 'objective science'.We create our knowledge; this includes our scientific and our moral knowledge.

[Author]

Posts