LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hiya B ijou
Lively obviously has an alter ego, Lovely. Much prefer the latter, who, being au fait with psychology, will be already aware of the dialectical nature of their personality, and so will strive to prevail, in their unceasing battle with the ‘bastardness’ of their other half, that I referred to!
Love and kisses!
LibCom doesn’t do ‘lively’ anymore. They seem to think ‘lively’ is necessarily ‘offensive’. Perhaps it is.
Anyway, they banned me, again, for being too ‘lively’.Nice to be back in contact with you and the very civilised BD.
At least that bastard ‘Lively’ Tim has stopped posting…patreilly wrote:The price or money-form of commodities is, like their form of value generally, a form quite distinct from their palpable bodily form; it is, therefore, a purely ideal or mental formMarx, Capital, Volume I, Chapter 3 (1867)To extend Marx's words:
Marx wrote:The price or money-form of commodities is, like their form of value generally, a form quite distinct from their palpable bodily form; it is, therefore, a purely ideal or mental form. Although invisible, the value of iron, linen and corn has actual existence in these very articles: it is ideally made perceptible by their equality with gold, a relation that, so to say, exists only in their own heads.[my bold]Yeah, nice quote, patreilly, about Marx's 'idealism-materialism'.This passage only makes sense in terms of Marx's ideology.This is not 'matter' nor simply 'material', but the relation between 'ideal-material', which requires human conscious, not 'matter-in-itself'.'Matter' only 'exists' in the form 'matter-for-us' – thus, being our social product, we can change it.This is nothing whatsoever to do with Engels' 'materialism'.
jondwhite wrote:Sven Eric-Liedman has translated and updated his biography of Karl Marx and it is reviewed herehttps://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/reviews/15919_a-world-to-win-the-life-and-thought-of-karl-marx-by-sven-eric-liedman-reviewed-by-david-mclellan/David McLellan wrote:Liedman is also good on the different approaches of Marx and Engels to the natural sciences.It would be worth their time, for members of the SPGB to read up on these 'different approaches of Marx and Engels'.
ALB wrote:So, Lenin was not saying that socialism could be established without a majority wanting and understanding it, but the lesser error of saying that no such majority can emerge as long as the capitalist class retain political power and that a socialist minority therefore has to overthrow capitalist rule and then educate a majority into wanting socialism. Of course this didn't work, and was never going to work, and led to the minority evolving into a new privileged, ruling class themselves.[my bold]Whilst I agree with what ALB and the SPGB say here, I'm never quite sure why they don't apply the same political analysis to 'science', but instead, in effect, in relation to the political power of 'science', adopt Lenin's method.This political method assumes, of course, that an elite minority of specialists have an ability, prior to the proletariat, to know something that the proletariat can know only after a political revolution, then being taught by the 'revolutionary elite'.That is, 'science' is not a socio-political activity that the proletariat must school itself to be able to take power over, but is an activity that must be left to specialists.This is clearly an anti-democratic political method.Why can't the SPGB answer this political criticism of their 'science ideology' (even if it's not yet an openly declared party 'science policy')?
Young Master Smeet wrote:2: Rational humans will exchange equally (i.e. no-one wants to get the worst of an exchange).I'll just add that (2) is the logical plank of the entire of Marx' theory, disprove that, and all of it falls down.The problem with your assertion, YMS, is that 'rational', 'equally', 'worst' and 'logical' are all social products.So, it's entirely possible that 'the entire of Marx' theory' can 'all of it fall down' for one viewpoint, but not for another.Unless you openly tell Sympo about your political assumptions, it's possible for Sympo to assume that you're making a universal/absolute statement, which is simply 'True'.This will lead Sympo to think that either Sympo or you have the individual ability to determine this 'falling down'.'Falling down' is a political opinion, socially produced by social groups. Within a democratic group, it would be voted upon. 'Falling down' is subject to election, not an obvious state of affairs which an elite (or an individual) can simply 'objectively know'.
Sympo, after a little thought, I think I can explain your misunderstanding of the theory of Socially Necessary Labour Time (SNLT).You're using the theory of Biologically Necessary Labour Time (BNLT).The essential difference between the two, is that the former assumes 'Social Individuals', whereas the latter assumes 'Biological Individuals', as their respective ideological underpinning.Once that is clear, your questions (and misunderstanding of our replies) start to make sense.SNLT is about social production (and the production of 'apples-as-commodities-for-us'), whereas your questions are about you (and 'apples-in-themselves').Of course, these differing interpretations of 'labour time' fit into the differing approaches of Marx's social production and of Engels' materialism, even if you are unaware of (and not interested in) the political and philosophical background.
Sympo wrote:This thread is about SNLT, not for debating materialism.In all my replies to you Sympo, I've explained your misunderstanding of the theory of SNLT.Of course, there are links between your misunderstanding of this specific issue, and the 'materialists' misunderstanding of Marx, but if you're not interested in the wider philosophical debate about your ideas, just ignore it.The SNLT is a part of a wider web of ideas.
Marcos wrote:i know that L bird I started to study Marx yesterdayYeah, it shows, Marcos!So, today, start to study the differences between Marx's 'social productionism' and Engels' 'materialism'.The political inconsistencies about 'elites' and 'socialism' run through Engels, Kautsky, Plekhanov, Lenin and Stalin.Engels was inconsistent, and that laid the ground for Kautsky's notoriously elitist statement that workers shouldn't control 'science', and things only got worse.We have to get back to studying Marx, today and tomorrow, Marcus.
Marcos wrote:L Bird, it looks that you have been sharpening your knife lately. The last two answers that you have posted in this thread are totally correct.Everything in regard to Socialism and Marx is social or based on the concept of social production, even more, socialism is not going to be an economic system, it is going to be a social production.[my bold/italics]I know Marx better than you, Marcos.Even 'nature' and 'matter' are social products.Only 18th century 'materialists', who follow Engels' misunderstanding of Marx's 'social productionism', claim that 'nature' and 'matter' are not related to social production, and so are not 'in regard to Socialism and Marx'.Marx warned where 'materialism' would lead (in his Theses on Feuerbach), to a two-fold division in society, where a minority would claim to have a special access to 'reality' (or, 'matter' or 'nature'), and so Democratic Socialism would not apply to 'everything'.So, I'm consistently 'Marxist' and my views are 'based on the concept of social production', whereas you deny that 'matter' has anything to do with Socialism, Marx or social production. You're politically inconsistent, Marcos.
Marcos wrote:Our pamphlet titled: Alternative to capitalism, written by Adam Buick covers all the questions raised on this threadExcept the issue of the social production of 'matter'. The SPGB wishes to keep the social production of science in the hands of an elite, and will not allow the producers to vote upon their own concepts (which would allow them to change their own scientific concepts, in their own interests, for their own purposes).It's the 'materialists' whose 'knife' is blunt, Marcos. They can never answer these political questions about power within social production.
Sympo wrote:You wouldn't be able to tell which one you're holding and eating unless someone told you.That's the point!'One' can't tell.And the 'telling someone' is a socially productive subject.
Sympo wrote:I meant "identical" as in "one of the apples are as useful as the other one".But you're asking about the theory of SNLT, not comparative usefulness to individuals.SNLT is nothing to do with the latter, if that's what you're interested in. SNLT is about social production, not individuals' opinions.
Sympo wrote:2. Claiming that two identical apples have different values because one apple took longer than the other to produce makes no sense.It makes perfect sense, Sympo, because 'value' is not in the 'apples'.The fact that "one apple took longer than the other to produce" means that they are not 'identical'.That is, any 'identity' is in the production process, not in the 'apples-in-themselves' .An individual cannot tell their 'value' by examining them. Only a social group can determine 'value', by examining its own production processes.
Young Master Smeet wrote:…value and exchange value don't exist in the things themselves, but in the social relations and the process that surrounds the exchange.Yeah, 'value' is just like 'matter'….matter and production don't exist in the things themselves, but in the social relations and the process that surrounds the production.Hence, according to Marx, we can change them. Both 'value' and 'matter'. We could socially produce 'wealth' and 'energy', instead.
