LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote: “‘and so is of more practical use.’”
To who?
Who is the active subject, for whom this ‘human construct’ of ‘science’ is ‘of more practical use’?
Materialism, as Marx said, regards the ‘active subject’ as an elite, and so cannot allow democratic methods to be employed. Hence, the materialist SPGB’s rule of science by ‘Specialists’. Hence, as Marx said, society divided into two, ‘specialists’ and ‘generalists’, with the ‘specialists’ in political control of social production.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “LBird, i think i have raised the point of your own lack of action to change the world by declining to join the only political organisation i think you empathise with, despite your disagreements.”
But I haven’t been ‘inactive’, alan. I’ve spent several years, with much input from the posters here (many who have now left), trying to get to grips with Marx’s development and creation. It’s become very clear to me (perhaps too slowly, unlike Marx’s very quick reaction of “All I know is that I’m not a ‘Marxist’! “, when confronted with the fruits of Engels’ teachings within the French Materialists) that what passes as ‘Marxism’ has nothing whatsoever to do with Marx.
But, for a worker who has had to struggle to throw off the imbecilities of the ‘Trotskyists’, who were completely dominant in the schools and universities when I first started to enquire about ‘Marxism’ and communism, I haven’t done too badly. I got my first degree at 32, so I’m hardly a ‘quick developer’, more of a ‘relentless plodder’. But such is the life of workers under capitalism.
As for the SPGB, and my joining, you’re correct that I’m attracted to your openness and willingness to sustain criticism, and alleged commitment to ‘democracy’, which are all the complete opposite to the Trot parties. But…
… my attempts to point out the contradiction between ‘democracy’ and ‘materialism’ (as Marx also pointed out) have been met with simple hostility. It would seem pointless to join a party that says one thing, but thinks another. I must say, too, that it’s a very big surprise that not one other poster has even attempted to discuss this political problem. It seems that the ideology of ‘materialism’ is at the very roots of the party (which is fair enough if that’s what’s honestly believed), but it would seem to preclude the joining by a Marxist, who would insist on the democratic control of the social production of ‘truth’.
So, I do ’empathise with’ the ostensible ideas of the SPGB, but to me, the membership don’t!
BTW, Bertrand Russell was talking through his arse, as even he himself later admitted (regarding the ideology of mathematics in the late 19th/ early 20th centuries). Perhaps it’s unnecessary to say this, but most mathematicians are ‘materialists’. Marx and Einstein seem to have been left to rot. Capitalism, eh?
ALB wrote: “What we are looking for is a description that reliably predicts…“.
This is not what Marx was concerned with, ALB.
He was concerned with our human power to actively ‘CHANGE’ our world, not to passively ‘PREDICT’ the world.
Marx wasn’t a 18th century materialist, as Engels erroneously thought.
Of course, ‘materialists’ regard any reference to Marx’s ‘conscious activity’ as simply ‘idealism’. That is the fruit of Engels’ misunderstanding: a supposed ongoing ‘great battle’ between ‘ideas’ and ‘matter’. Marx disposed of that ideology in the 1840s, but Engels resurrected it. That’s the tradition within which the SPGB stands, and it’s the same one as Lenin, Plekhanov, Kautsky, Trotsky, etc…
It’s a dead end, comrades.
marcos wrote: “Marx created the Materialist Conception of History, clearly and simply defined by Engels…”
This is a myth, marcos.
All the evidence shows that Engels ‘created’ what he then ‘clearly and simply defined’.
I’d advise any comrades interested in this issue to read Terrell Carver’s Marx & Engels: The Intellectual Relationship, especially chapters 4 (The Invention of Dialectics) and 5 (‘Second Fiddle’?).
marcos wrote: “I threw it in the trash bin“.
That’s not a good method, marcos.
Critical thinking about scientific issues, and the ability to form persuasive arguments for other workers, is the method we should adopt.
You’ve often shown disdain for these issues, but I’ve never read any informed criticism from you, about why you reject Marx’s views, even though you’ve actually read what Marx himself wrote.
But, it’s your political choice…
Matthew Culbert wrote: “There will be no ‘elites’ having ‘power’ put into their hands.
We will require specialisms. But considerations about decisions about which applications of those will prevail, will reside within an informed society.”
It seems we agree, Matt.
A democratic socialist society will be ‘an informed society’ which makes its own ‘decisions’, not a powerful ‘elite’.
The implication of this is that ‘truth’ will be elected, by a democratic scientific method. ‘Truth’ will not be determined by an ‘elite’, and certainly not by an unconscious ‘matter’.
marcos wrote: “We have been dealing with this thing about idealism/materialism, or materialism/idealism for years, and most of the time the thread is taking out of context”
Perhaps some socio-historical ‘context’ can be provided, marcos. I’ve recommended this before, as reading for democratic socialists who are interested in the origins of ‘science’:
Connor, C. D. (2005) A People’s History of Science
Especially chapter 6, ‘Who were the winners in the scientific revolution?‘, pp. 349-421.
Wez wrote: “Either you believe that the class struggle is the dynamic element driving social change or you don’t. ”
I couldn’t agree more, Wez. But it’s the materialists who don’t believe that ‘social change’ in physics, mathematics, logic, etc. is driven by class struggle. ‘Materialists’ regard ‘science’ as an ahistorical, asocial, politically-neutral activity, which is best left to an elite. Of course, this is an ideological belief introduced by the bourgeoisie, with their class struggle victory during the 17th century, especially in England – for example, the setting up of the Royal Society with the restoration in 1660, after the defeat of the radicals during the class struggle in science, where the radical scientists argued for a democratic science. The key step in the counterrevolutionaries’ victory was the separation of ‘science’ and ‘society’ (or, ‘matter’ and ‘ideas’, or ‘being’ and ‘consciousness’, or ‘science’ and ‘art’, or ‘material’ and ‘ideal’, or ‘fact’ and ‘opinion’, etc.) – this ideological belief is still ‘the ruling class idea’ which dominates contemporary ‘science’. The ‘materialists’ abet this ruling class idea.
Wez wrote: “If you do it would be absurd to not mention Marx as one who developed this theory – why would you want to? It would be as ridiculous as discussing physics without mentioning Einstein or Biology without reference to Darwin.”
Yes, as ‘ridiculous as discussing physics…or biology without mentioning’ Marx. But the ‘materialists’ constantly do just this. They are ‘absurd’.
Wez wrote: “If you do not regard the class struggle to be of primary importance in cultural development then you are not a socialist.” [my bold]
The word is ‘scientific’, Wez, not simply ‘cultural’.
You are separating ‘science’ from ‘culture’, just as the bourgeois ruling ideas insist that you do.
As any Marxist, any democratic socialist, will tell you: “If you do not regard the class struggle to be of primary importance in scientific development then you are not a socialist.”
If you’re waiting for matter’s victory in the class struggle, Wez, you’re going to have a long wait.
You’d be better putting your faith in your fellow workers – which brings us back to MutualAid’s lack of this faith. MutualAid, just like all ‘materialists’ has faith in ‘matter’, not active conscious humanity, and their social production.
Marx re-unified where the bourgeoisie had separated. Why argue for the separation of ‘science’ and ‘society’, and against democratic physics?
Marx argued for a revolutionary science, not the mere acceptance of what ruling class scientists say.
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.
