[LBird]

Marcos wrote:

And you have not  answered your ?  You are speaking in the name of the world working class. It sounds like Lenin who indicated that Marx was able to explain everything that exists  under the sun

1. I'm a worker, arguing that workers' democracy is essential to the revolutionary proletariat. The world working class can reject that, but then they will be politically disarmed. That is their choice.2. Why keep trotting out the old canard that I say that 'Marx was infallible'? I've answered this accusation, that you constantly make, several times now. Why not read what I write? Marx was a shit writer, who contradicted himself, and he certainly wasn't 'able to explain everything under the sun'. Now, I've said that yet again, so don't try to hide your confusion about Marx's works by claiming those who do understand him are 'worshippers'.3. As a 'materialist', Marcos, you're the Leninist. Why not face up to it? But… you can change.

[LBird]

Marcos wrote:

Antoher materialist-idealist said that Marx is the practice converted into a theory, 

No, Marcos, 'idealism-materialism' is 'theory and practice'.That's the whole point. There isn't a 'non-theoretical' practice which produces 'theory'. That's (supposed) 'induction'.Putting 'practice' first is an ideological and political move, to allow the (supposed) 'practitioners' to hide their own theory, and thus present their own pre-existing theory as a result of 'un-ideological' practice.That's why it was Lenin's chosen method. He pretended to 'Know Matter' without any prior theory, and claimed he was simply theorising 'objective activity'. He was a liar, an elitist, and a danger to workers' democracy.As Marx warned, in his Theses on Feuerbach, all materialists must do this. It's the nature of 'materialism'. It's a bourgeois philosophy for elites.Dunayevskaya seems to sense this, but was never able to draw the correct political conclusion. That is, workers' democracy.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Just to say, publishers do play a valuable role, when they select and market content, we will still need some of that function even in socialism: teh alternative is to look at the wild west of predatory publishing of fake open access journals with made up editorial boards.

[my bold]No, you're wrong, YMS.Whilst 'they select', they have the power of selection. This power, within a democratically productive society like socialism, must be under democratic control. Only the social producers can 'select'.The 'alternative' is democratic control of publishing, not your supposed contrast of 'no power' to 'elite power'.You're not a democrat, YMS, so you can only conceive of either 'complete anarchy' or 'a good elite'. As such, you're not a socialist, because socialism is the democratic control of production.

[LBird]

Marcos wrote:

LBird wrote:

Yes, Marcos, especially from p. 34-43 of Marxism and Freedom.She was on to something, when trying to challenge the dominance of Engels' 'materialism' within the socialist movement.But she left some serious gaps in her thought, especially regarding Marx's adherence to democracy, and, even given her insights about Marx's idealism-materialism, she fell back into 'materialist' explanations.

I know Raya works pretty well, and I knew her, and I was a member of her organization for several years, but like you, she wanted to unify idealism with materialism, and she also tried to blame everything on Engels like you, so what is the difference between you and her ?  The only major difference is that she rejected the vanguard party to lead, but she was always a Leninists, and she indicated that Engels was a post Marxist. What movement ? There is not any socilaist movement, and we have not had a socialist movement yet. She was part of the world reformist trend. How can she fall into materialist explanation when she rejected Lenin bourgoise materialism ?

[my bold]You've answered your own question, here, Marcos.The difference is, like Marx, I'm a consistent 'idealist-materialist'.No matter what she wrote about this (which I agree with), she then fell back into 'materialism' – hence, back into Leninism. She was an inconsistent idealist-materialist. She managed to identify the theoretical (and thus, political) problem with 'materialism' (it philosophically supports elistism, not democracy), but couldn't jettison 19th century science (ie. materialism), just as Engels couldn't.But we live in the 21st century, Marcos, where Marx's notions of 'humanity creating its object' fits nicely with the advances of physics, where they are starting to recognise that Marx was correct – 'our object' is not only 'the material' or 'the physical', but time and space, too.Humans create their universe. Marx is still relevant.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I have no wish for the SPGB to be a philosopher's club which LBird seems intent upon making us into by his constant avoidance of constructive exchanges on actual practice, despite repeated imploring from myself. We are a political party that should be centred on political action, and that is, indeed, what is often lacking in our activity.

You still don't get it, alan.'Theory' precedes 'practice'.There is no 'actual practice', without a preceding 'theory'. Those, like you, who think that there is, are simply lying to workers – or, at best, are completely ignorant of Marx. I think that you are in the latter category.So, despite my repeated implorings, you refuse to tell workers what 'theory' you espouse.And the 'theory' that your party does espouse, 'materialism' (or, 'practice and theory'), says that workers can't change their world (and by 'world', Marx means their physical universe).And you're a party that 'lacks in conscious theory', and so any 'activity' will be of no use to revolutionary workers. Indeed, your members, and you, never mention workers' democracy in creating 'our-sun'. You claim to 'know The Sun', as an ahistoric, asocial, 'reality', by using your 'individual biological senses'.It's political and philosophical nonsense, alan.

[LBird]

Marcos wrote:

From the writtings of Raya Dunayeskaya Marx’s humanism was neither a rejection of idealism nor an acceptance of materialism, but the truth of both, and therefore a new unity. Marx’s “collectivism” has, as its very soul, the individualistic element. That is why the young Marx felt compelled to separate himself from the “quite vulgar and unthinking communism which completely negates the personality of man.” She also wrote on Marxism and Freedom that Marx was the most idealist of the materialist philosopher, and the most materialist of the idealist philosopher

Yes, Marcos, especially from p. 34-43 of Marxism and Freedom.She was on to something, when trying to challenge the dominance of Engels' 'materialism' within the socialist movement.But she left some serious gaps in her thought, especially regarding Marx's adherence to democracy, and, even given her insights about Marx's idealism-materialism, she fell back into 'materialist' explanations.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

… that doesn't methodologically change the facts of the experience of accounting for what Hubble and New Horizons have shown us on the matter.

Here we have it – the method of 'facts' and 'experience', and 'Hubble and New Horizons' actively 'showing' us, 'the passive ones'.Conservative, elitist, objective 'science'.Move along, you masses of workers – nothing to see, nothing to engage in, trust your betters!No mention of Marx, democratic methods, socialism, workers, or social creation of 'objects-for-us'. Certainly no mention of revolution!

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Pluto was a planet, then it was not, then it was once more. A vote decided that. And that is my only comment on the Sun.

That's what's at issue here, alan.Who has the power to decide?The materialists – twc, robbo, Vin, Tim, YMS, etc. – claim that Pluto itself tells them that it is a 'planet'. They claim that this is an 'objective fact'. They deny that humans created 'the planet Pluto', and can change it. They deny that 'the planet Pluto' has a history, dependent upon social factors.You've shown, by your example, that they are wrong.In fact, humans have the power to change 'the planet Pluto', and Democratic Communists argue that this power should be under democratic controls. The materialists are happy for an unelected elite to have this power.This is the core of Marx's 'democratic social productionism'.You have to choose a side, alan. The undemocratic, elitist materialists, or the democratic social productionists. That's politics, I'm afraid. If you don't choose, you'll get caught out, when they move on from questions of 'planet status' to questions of 'our status'. They'll support an elite of 'Specialists' (ie. unelected academics), and deny power to the majority of 'Generalists' (ie. workers).This is the political warning that Marx gave, in his Theses on Feuerbach.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

.Simple Marxism, twc. 'Nature', as we know it, is currently a class construct. 'Nature', as we don't know it, is, as Marx said, 'nothing for us'.

 Evidence?  Where did  Marx say such a thing? I suspect most of the time you are just inventing things about what Marx said  in order to bolster your belief that you are some sort of Marxist (as opposed to the Leninist we all know you to be),  At any rate if such quote exists it could not mean what you want it to mean.   In order to interpret nature and I agree our view of nature is inescapably a matter of interptation,  there must be something there to interpret in the first place.  Is that not the case or would you beg to differ?

You're going to have to read Marx, robbo.I've provided the quotes, time and time again, and I'm not doing your work for you, any longer. Go and pick up a book.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Stop playing with words LBird.  You know exactly what I am saying.  You know also that the sun as a physical object was not created by us unless that is you have completely lost your marbles. 

More insults. Pretty childish, robbo. Try to stick to reasoned argument. 

robbo203 wrote:

Nowhere did Marx say we create inorganic matter in this physical sense, That would be too daft for words.   What he said was we transform matter through labour into the products of our labour.  That is something quite diferent to what you are trying to imply

No, you're wrong, robbo. As usual.Marx referred to 'inorganic nature' (not 'matter'). You, like Engels, don't understand Marx's philosophical background and concerns. That is why you choose to change 'nature' into 'matter'. And then, quite wrongly, define 'inorganic nature' as 'physical'. You don't understand the concept of 'inorganic nature', and wish, like Engels, to redefine that as 'matter' and 'physical'. It's a concept dating back to the Ancient Greeks, of 'hupokeimenon', the 'underlying'… or, as Marx rendered it, 'substratum'. On the contrary, 'matter' and the 'physical' are social products of our activity upon this 'underlying'.So, he didn't say 'we transform matter', but 'we transform inorganic nature' into 'organic nature'. That is, 'nature for us'.What you write 'is something quite different to what Marx was trying to imply'.Marx was implying that we can change 'nature for us'. Any 'nature' that is not 'for us' is 'nothing for humanity'.'Matter' is a socio-historical product, robbo. Why won't you discuss the social history of the production of 'matter'?

[LBird]

twc wrote:

2. “Natural laws cannot be abolished.”Try comments 2, 5 and 8.

Let's keep it simple.So-called 'Natural laws' are products of the society that creates them.So, being our products, we can 'abolish' them, and replace them with 'natural laws' suited to our needs, interests and purposes, as we create them through our social theory and practice.Simple Marxism, twc. 'Nature', as we know it, is currently a class construct. 'Nature', as we don't know it, is, as Marx said, 'nothing for us'.

[LBird]

Your argument, twc, comes down to: by 'new materialism', Marx really meant 'materialism'.My argument comes down to: by 'new materialism', Marx really meant 'idealism-materialism'.Comrades will have to read Marx's works for themselves, to try to settle this debate.The problem for twc is, if Marx was a 'materialist', then he rejected his own unification of parts of both 'idealism' and 'materialism', which forms the basis of 'theory and practice', 'conscious activity', 'social production' – these all need both the 'active side' of 'idealism', and the 'human suffering' of 'materialism'.Neither the idealists, who were worshippers of 'the divine', of 'god', nor the materialists, who were worshippers of 'inert matter', of 'clockwork determinism', could answer the question posed by Marx: how do we social producers change our world?The answer to this question, from both idealists and materialists, is that we don't. Their answers, respectively, are: 'we don't, god does' and 'we don't, matter changes itself'.Any interested comrade reading, ask Vin, Tim, YMS, robbo, twc, how we change the sun? They say, 'we don't'. Just like the bourgeoisie says, too.For Marx, 'objects', like 'the sun', were our social products, and so we can change them. Thus, our scientific knowledge is 'socially objective', and not 'objective', as bourgeois materialism claims.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

 Human beings obviously did not create the sun, it is the idea of the sun that is socially created or culturallly conditioned.  …For clarification, I suggest in future the word interpret be used instead of create … 

You'll have to tell us how you know the sun, robbo, outside of our social 'idea of the sun that is socially created'.Marx uses the word 'create', because we 'create' any 'sun' that we 'know'. So, to switch to 'interpret' is a political and ideological step away from Marx.You clearly think that your knowledge of the 'sun' is not socially created, but your individual knowledge from your biological senses. You should be open to us and yourself, that your method is a non-social method, and also a non-historical method, because you claim to know the 'sun' as it 'is', outside of our historical creation of 'our-sun'.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

Thus, 'The Sun' is a social product. We can tell this because different societies through history have had different accounts of what 'The Sun' supposedly 'really is'.

The Sun has not changed only our interpretation of it .  

So, if you 'know' what the Sun 'is', outside of 'our interpretation of it', you should be able to tell us all how you got to know what this unchanged, ahistorical, non-social, Sun 'is'.You separate a 'thing' from 'our knowledge of the thing'. You should be able to tell us how you do this, because it means you have access to the thing 'as is it'. And if you do so, you have rendered history un-needed, because 'as it is' doesn't need history.Unfortunately, Vin, your claims are nothing to do with Marx, and everything to do with bourgeois brainwashing, that, at last, they, the bourgeoisie, have overcome history, and have unmediated, non-socio-historic, access to 'reality', and so the world 'as it is' hasn't been created by them, but just 'is'.Perhaps you can't see the conservative formulation of this approach, but surely others here can.On the contrary, though, Marx stresses social production, history and change, not 'reality' as it supposedly 'is', and is thus fixed forever, and can't be changed by humans.'The Sun has not changed' is the statement of a conservative, not of a revolutionary.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

Marx argues that we create our reality. 

out of material conditions we find at hand

Yes, Vin, and the 'material conditions' are those created by previous generations of humans employing social theory and practice.Marx is talking about the history of social production, not the one-off, ahistorical, uncovering of 'matter', that 'materialists' allege that they are doing.Thus, 'The Sun' is a social product. We can tell this because different societies through history have had different accounts of what 'The Sun' supposedly 'really is'. And so, any account of 'The Sun', including your account, has to be situated within the society that produces that account. Science has a social history. Knowledge has a social history.No doubt, 'your own' account of 'The Sun' will involve your individual biological senses, especially from 'your own' eyes. And we can see that you got this belief in 'individual biology', not from Marx (who argues that our senses are socially created, and thus refracted through our social perception, our ideas, our consciousness), but from the bourgeoisie, who you unquestioningly follow. " 'Individual senses' as the source of social knowledge" is a ruling class idea, and you have uncritically accepted this, all your life. That's why ruling class ideas are powerful, and have to be challenged.By 'material', Marx means 'human', as opposed to 'ideal', meaning 'divine'.So when Marx writes 'material', he means 'social', not 'matter'.So, by 'material conditions' he means 'socially produced conditions', not 'hard stuff' we can touch (like 'technology' or a 'factory').Engels didn't understand this, and you follow Engels, Vin, not Marx.

[Author]

Posts