LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Bijou Drains wrote: “Genuine question, L Bird… , when you say “Even Engels recognised that ‘matter’ was a social product.”, do you mean that Engles recognised the concept and cognitive understandings of matter were a social product...”
No, that’s not what Engels ‘recognised’, BD. That is, not ‘the concept and cognitive understandings’ (to use your phraseology), but ‘matter’ itself (to give a name to what you, as a materialist, seem to believe in – no insult meant here, just trying to clarify our differences, as I’m not a materialist, I follow Marx’s social productionism).
“N.B. Matter as such is a pure creation of thought and an abstraction.” (Engels, Collected Works, Volume 25, p. 533) [my bold]
Engels words seem to be a reference to ‘matter-in-itself’, as opposed to ‘matter-for-us’. These, of course, are the Kantian categories, that all German Idealists, including Marx, wrestled with. So, as with Marx, Engels here seems to recognise that any ‘matter’ (whether termed ‘-in-itself’ or ‘-for-us’) is a social product, which we can thus change (which was Marx’s key political and philosophical point – human activity, labour, production).
Bijou Drains wrote: “…an interplay between the idealist (idea of matter) and the materialist (whatever it was that gave rise to the idea)“.
Once again, BD, you conceptually separate ‘ideas’ and ‘it’, and assume that ‘ideas’ reflect ‘it’. This is a political ideology that Marx rejected. Any ‘it’ does not give rise to ‘ideas’ (that is a materialist ideology, of ‘ideas’ being a ‘reflection’ of ‘reality’, of a ‘correspondence theory of truth’). What gives ‘rise to the idea’ is humanity – specifically, human conscious activity, social production. The alternative is an ideology that insists that humans are passive in the face of ‘it’, ‘reality’, ‘truth’, whatever ‘it’ is termed. But if that is correct, then we can’t change ‘it’ (‘it’ not being our product).
Marx held that ‘consciousness-being’, ‘subject-object’, ‘ideas-reality’, ‘ideal-material’, etc. can’t be separated, and that activity is the link. Marx achieved the aim of German Idealism, which was to reconcile ‘idealism’ and ‘materialism’. Idealism focused on ‘activity’ (and so defeated passive materialism), but the ‘activity’ that it fastened upon was ‘divine activity’ (god’s production). Marx corrected that finding of German Idealism, by making the ‘activity’ a ‘profane’ one – ie. Human activity.
Marx reconciled ‘idealism’ and ‘materialism’, in a politics and philosophy of human activity, our labour, social production.
PS. thanks for the congrats. 🙂
marcos wrote: “Raya Dunayevskaya wrote on Marxism and Freedom that Marx was the most idealist of the materialist philosophers and the most materialist of the idealist philosopher, and that is idealism/materialism, or vice versa and that is the basis of the current known as Marxism humanism”
Yes, I’ve read Dunayevskaya (amongst many others), and on this point, about Marx being an ‘idealist-materialist’, I agree with her. After all, as she says, it’s what Marx himself wrote.
It seems clear that any notion of Marx’s method of ‘social theory and practice’ being the basis of our social production, requires that both consciousness and activity are required. ‘Matter’ is a social product of our activity, not of god, and we are not a passive product of matter’s activity.
Even Engels recognised that ‘matter’ was a social product. As to why he seemed to also think that ‘nature’ pre-existed us, we can’t be sure. He seems to have been confused by philosophical issues, and it shows in his work, which is contradictory.
Matthew Culbert wrote: “A daft question. Truth is relative. Scientific truth likely to be so. with no right or wrong ‘truth’ answers. The choice of which particular answer to various scientific enquiry, will be most likely varied land a range of options will most likely be available, to be decided upon at any time, by whichever criteria people at the time deem appropriate.”
Well, it might be ‘a daft question’ for your political position, Matt, but it’s of the utmost importance to democratic socialists and Marxists.
Once more, ‘who’ deems, and ‘how’?
The simple answers for democratic socialists is ‘the social producers’ and ‘by democratic methods’.
To be clear, the ‘social producers’ are the mass of humanity, not an ‘elite’, and by ‘democracy’ is meant ‘voting’.
Thus, ‘truth’ is relative to the democratic decisions of humanity. Thus, ‘truth’ will be ‘elected’.
Matthew Culbert wrote: “LBird is still being absurd, when he indicates specialists will be constitued as ‘elites’ in an advanced, commonly owned , democratic, production for use free access society. They will be no more so, than plumbers, infotech coders, or anyone else whose expertise is drawn upon.”
Well, I’ve asked you, and any other SPGB member, to say who, within your notion of democratic socialism, will determine ‘truth’.
Whenever I’ve asked this, I’ve either been ignored, or had the answer ‘Specialists’.
‘Drawing upon expertise’ suggests to me that political control of that ‘advice’ will lie with the majority, not the expert.
Thus, the ‘expertise’ can be rejected.
The SPGB has always suggested that the ‘specialists’ will control their ‘specialisms’.
Perhaps you can give me a political answer, rather than calling the demand for ‘democracy’ as ‘absurd’.
MutualAid wrote “L. Bird, I am a materialist, but don’t expect everyone else to be.”
No problem, MA. There are lots of people who claim to be a ‘materialist’, including most (if not all) who post here.
The point I’m making is that Marx wasn’t a ‘materialist’, but an ‘idealist-materialist’.
The difference between ‘idealist’, ‘materialist’ and ‘idealist-materialist’ is as follows:
- An ‘idealist’ believes that ‘consciousness’ precedes ‘matter’. The active agent is the divine. Humanity is passive, and cannot change ‘god’.
- A ‘materialist’ believes that ‘matter’ precedes ‘consciousness’. The active agent is ‘matter’. Humanity is passive, and cannot change ‘matter’.
- An ‘idealist-materialist’ (following Marx) believes that both ‘consciousness and matter’ must exist together. The active agent is humanity, which creates both ‘matter’ and ‘consciousness’, and can change both.
- Democracy in all social production can only exist in the latter. Neither idealists nor materialists will allow the democratic control of the production of truth, and claim that ‘truth’ is related to ‘god’ (idealism) or ‘matter’ (materialism). They both claim that an elite is responsible for ‘truth production’, and thus won’t allow a vote by the mass.
Where I agree with Wez and Marcos, and therefore disagree with MutualAid, is about the political need for democratic, mass, conscious activity. To ‘rule out’ this, is to reject communism, in any form that Marx was arguing for.
The political and philosophical problem, though, is that MutualAid’s need for an ‘elite’ in political activity, is mirrored by Wez and Marcos’ need for an ‘elite’, too, in ‘scientific activity’.
The concept ‘Scientific Socialism’ (that all ‘materialists’ appeal to, just like Lenin did) is anti-democratic.
Socialism must be based from the start upon the concept of democratic mass activity in all areas of social production. Without this political basis, an elite will be given power within social production, because it’s hard to imagine the proletariat building socialism without their ‘science’.
‘Scientific Socialists’ will go down the same political road as MutualAid, and place power in the hands of an elite. Marx warned about this tendency of the ‘materialists’, in his Theses on Feuerbach. They’ll separate society into two: the ‘knowers’ and the ‘ignorant’; they’ll keep their ‘science’ for the elite of ‘knowers’, and prevent mass democratic participation in ‘science’.
Has anyone else noticed the sleight of hand and contradiction of:
Mutual Aid wrote: “…conscious Marxist materialists…”
and
Wez wrote: “…Marxist Materialist…”?
Simpy put, ‘consciousness’ requires more than ‘material’, and Wez’s excision of ‘conscious’ from Mutual Aid’s concept displays a return to 18th century materialism.
Of course, MA’s formulation is the correct one, from the point of view of Marx’s politics and philosophy.
So, Wez is incorrect to say “‘Marxist Materialist’ is the definition of a socialist“. That is actually the Leninist definition.
The correct view for all democratic socialists is “‘Marxist Idealist-Materialist’ is the definition of a socialist“.
Without ‘consciousness’ or ‘ideas’, there can be no democracy.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “Once again, LBird, I fail to meet the demands of your high bar.”
Surely it’s not such a ‘high bar’, alan, to ask ‘materialists’ to actually read Marx, rather than continue to propagate myths about ‘matter determining thought’?
alanjjohnstone wrote: “Even though I made it clear that it is incumbent upon ourselves to convince fellow-workers…”
But… convince them of what? That ‘matter’ will tell them what to do?
It’s nonsense, alan.
We should be encouraging the proletariat to take control of ‘science’, not meekly obey what ‘science’ (supposedly) ‘says’.
Who currently is telling workers that Johnson et al are following ‘the science’?
alan, I regard both the ‘environmental movement’ and the ‘anti-racism resistance’ as examples of ‘class struggles’.
I suppose it depends upon one’s definition of ‘class’.
I regard ‘class’ as ‘an exploitative relationship’.
This ‘exploitation’ is far more than mere ‘economic and material conditions’.
Again, I suppose it depends upon one’s definition of ‘conditions’.
I regard ‘conditions’ as ‘production’.
This ‘production’ includes both ‘theory and practice’, of all aspects of human production.
It’s always been a myth that the ‘material’ will determine ‘consciousness’ (or, ‘practice’ will determine ‘theory’).
It’s the ‘materialists’, like you, who will become disappointed at the ‘failure’ of the ‘economic and material conditions’ to ‘motivate the masses’.
Even now, your insistence that “economics and material conditions are the underlying causes of the discontent and dissent” shows that you still don’t understand Marx.
Of course, underlying your ideology is the erroneous claim that you are ‘motivated’ by ‘economics and material conditions’, so you can continue to blame the benighted ‘masses’, rather than blame the ‘materialists’ for their failure to read and understand Marx.
‘Communism’ is ‘democracy’, in all social production – ‘Communism’ is not ‘matter determining ideas’. The latter is an ideology of an elite.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “In this early period, “communism” implied a total transformation of institutions and did not have a special focus on working-class struggles.
Are we are returning to that original understanding?”
Hopefully not, as its lack of focus on ‘working-class struggles’ was remedied by Marx, who insisted that ‘communism’ could only mean ‘democratic communism’, as opposed to any form of ‘elite communism’, within which the active ‘transformer of institutions’ could be an elite, who pretended to ‘know better’ than the masses.
I’m sure that you know where I’m going with this comment, alan.
Think ‘physicists’, ‘mathematicians’, ‘logicians’, ‘scientists’, ‘specialists‘, as the ‘transformers’, not the ‘generalists‘.
Which ideology argues for that, in opposition to Marx’s ‘democratic communism’?
Any ‘transformation’ of ‘our reality’ can only be made by ‘working class struggles’, the self-activity of the masses, by democratic methods.
Some relevant thoughts from Engels, ‘Dialectics of Nature’ (CW 25, pp. 490-1):
“Natural scientists believe that they free themselves from philosophy by ignoring it or abusing it. They cannot, however, make any headway without thought, and for thought they need thought determinations. But they take these categories unreflectingly from the common consciousness of so-called educated persons, which is dominated by the relics of long obsolete philosophies or from the little bit of philosophy compulsorily listened to at the University (which is not only fragmentary, but also a medley of views of people belonging to the most varied. and usually the worst schools), or from uncritical and unsystematic reading of philosophical writings of all kinds. Hence they are no less in bondage to philosophy but unfortunately in most cases to the worst philosophy, and those who abuse philosophy most are slaves to precisely the worst vulgarized relics of the worst philosophies.
* * *
Natural scientists may adopt whatever attitude they please, they are still under the domination of philosophy. It is only a question whether they want to be dominated by a bad, fashionable philosophy or by a form of theoretical thought which rests on acquaintance with the history of thought and its achievements.
“Physics, beware of metaphysics!” is quite right, but in a different sense.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/don/ch07b.htm
Matthew Culbert wrote: “I think ALB and ALJO have summed up our historical materialist position.”
Yes, I think that they have.
The point is, Marx never claimed to be a ‘historical materialist’, which youse all claim to be ‘our position’.
‘Historical materialism’ was a term claimed by Engels, and his claims for the ‘matter versus humanity’ debate (of which I’ve alluded to, as 2 and 3 of our choices, above) are different to Marx’s.
Marx very clearly chose ‘Humanity’, not ‘Matter’, as the ‘creator’, within his theories.
Engels was very inconsistent, and is not a very good basis for even the claims of ‘historical materialism’ (ie. ‘your position’), because even he wrote that ‘matter’ was a social product, which all ‘materialists’ (whether of the ‘historical’ sort or not) dispute.
All ‘materialists’ claim that ‘matter’ precedes its creator (humanity), which is clearly an illogical argument to make. Thus, they must claim that ‘matter’ itself is the ‘creator’ of ‘humanity’ (and not humanity itself as its own ‘creator’, which was Marx’s ‘position’ – and mine).
As I said earlier, this is a fundamental question for any ‘Marxist’ to answer – and the answer must be ‘humanity’ (not ‘matter’), for Marx’s theories and concepts to make any sense.
For example, Marx employed a concept of ‘social production’, within which the ‘social producers’ were ‘active humanity’. On the contrary, ‘matter’ requires a ‘passive humanity’, which is the product of ‘matter’. Thus, ‘matter’ is ‘god’, the divine producer of humanity.
This is the political, philosophical and ideological question which ‘historical materialists’ must have an answer for, which allows for ‘democratic’ social production.
I’m yet to read or hear a convincing one, Matthew. Put simply, ‘matter’ is not a ‘democratic’ concept.
alan, BD, thanks for your kind words.
It’s a real shame that the issue encapsulated in this thread title hasn’t been discussed more comrade-ily over the last few years.
It’s a question that is politically and ideologically fundamental – who/what is the ‘creator’ of our world (and so, being its creator, can change it)?
God, Matter, or Humanity?
These three choices being the answers, respectively, of Idealists, Materialists and Marxists.
Again, the Divine, Nature, or us? Or, Spirit, Reality or Social Production?
I think that ‘divine intervention’ or ‘miraculous conception’ describes perfectly Marx’s position.
Marx saw the proletariat as the ‘divine’ subject who would create their world, for themselves, by themselves.
This ‘conscious activity’ by the vast majority of humanity would be a ‘miraculous conception’, something completely new and original, a social product of the theory and practice of workers themselves.
It’s nothing to do with a ‘science’ that an elite minority can ‘understand’ prior to workers themselves producing the ‘miracle’. And it’s certainly nothing to do with ‘matter’.
In fact, I’d argue that the ‘materialists’, including the archetype Lenin, have smothered any chance of the production of this ‘miracle’, by telling workers that ‘material conditions’ will ‘conceive’. In effect, whereas Marx replaced the ‘divine’ with the ‘mundane’ (ie. us), the ‘materialists’ re-instated the ‘divine’ in their ‘matter’.
