[LBird]

Sympo wrote:

No offence people but why does every thread have to turn into a debate about the validity of "idealism-materialism"Is this stuff really relevant to the thread?

Yeah, in a word, fundamental.Either your question is about 'materialism' (and the 'historical' is just a sly prefix to be ignored, like 'dialectical', etc.) and so you are asking about Engels' views, or……you want to know about Marx's 'social production' (which is what Marx wished to dicuss – he never used the terms 'historical materialism' or 'dialectical materialism').So, Sympo, are you interested in humans and their changing socio-historical production, or how 'matter' determines human activity?If you are interested in the latter, see twc's answers.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

We are now getting closer to an actual debate about our problems as put by me in messages # 40 and  #58, LBird. As Marx pointed out 

Quote:

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society,

And we have not succeeded in breaking out of their parameters, have we? We are still dominated by their cultural hegemony as Gramsci expressed itIn the war of ideas we have failed, a point i keep repeating to my party comrades.

Let's get this straight, alan.It's not 'we' class conscious workers who've 'failed', but you and the SPGB. Plenty of workers (being able to overcome their bellies) can read history, philosophy and physics, and can understand the utter tripe of the belief that 'material' equals 'matter' in Marx's works. There are plenty of Gramsci's 'organic intellectuals' within the class, today. 

ajj wrote:

I now ask you and i expect an answer that we can begin to implement as a organisation to unite about, what sort of socialist "party" and what type of campaign or literature do you envisage succeeding in over-turning the "ruling material force"?Can we have some answers…i'm fed up with questions when my own answers are being so casually dismissed.

'Casually dismissed'? Fuckin' hell, alan, I've spent hours slowly explaining to you, over years, drawing on my efforts to think (whilst you've been stuffing your belly, apparently), and you can insult me like this?I'll tell you what workers need, an organisation that starts from workers' democracy, not the shite of elite materialism, and the so-called 'Specialists' of the SPGB, with their bourgeois method of 'their own biological senses', and their wish to realise bourgeois individualism, rather than the democratic control of social production.I'd better leave it there for now, since I've said all this before, but you call it 'dismissal', so I'm going to have a 'casual' cup of tea, and calm down.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Oh, and do tell what would happen to someone who, unelected, starts disseminating printed materials on science, written on the back of brown paper envelopes?  

BTW, duly noted that you didn't answr this question.

You're like an irritating child, who just won't stop asking the same question, even when explained to a hundred times.Why would anyone use a brown paper envelope to write on science? They'll have the finest universities, facilities and minds that we can produce, all at their beck and call.Still, even they wish to do this, and pass the brown paper envelope onto their elected authorities, those democratic authorities will judge on the usefulness to our social production of the ideas contained thereon, bearing in mind our needs, interests and purposes.Of course, if the reason that the particular individual using this strange, anti-social method, is doing this because they are mentally ill, we'll probably ignore their advice to turn chips into rocket fuel. We'll probably store the brown paper envelope, though, for future consultation, if it turns out that, though mentally ill at the time, the writer actually had a good idea. I presume we'd at least photocopy it, for dissemination, because the individualist method of passing on a brown paper envelope for individuals to read, wouldn't suit our needs, interests and purposes, in our world social production.Now, leave me alone, or I'll set the bogeyman on you.Vin, I've got a job for you…

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

 Material – synonyms:physical, corporeal, tangible, nonspiritual, mundane, worldly, earthly, secular, temporal, concrete, real, solid, substantial

Quote:

irrelevancies to  our material lives

 I fear my belly over-rides my mind on so many occasions and i think that it is the motor when we discuss society and social change. 

Yeah, I agree with your diagnosis of your political problem, alan.Whilst food 'over-rides' philosophy, workers will always be in thrall to the ideas of the ruling class.That's what Marx thought, too.But, since we workers have some spare time now to read Marx, Engels and other philosophers and physicists, we can begin to place a higher priority on philosophy, since Big Macs are available to all workers.Still, I don't know your particular socio-economic position – perhaps you work 6 days a week, from 6am to midnight, and lack even the basics of a diet, in a 19th century hellhole like Engels' Manchester… and so Marx was correct, and 'your belly' will continue to 'over-ride your mind'.Anyway, since you don't seem able to question (never mind criticise) ruling class ideas, are you really the right person to be telling workers, who can criticise ruling class ideas, what 'socialism' will be?Oh yeah, whilst I remember – and that 'material production' for Marx meant 'social production', not 'matter producing' for itself.Good luck with the belly, alan. Leave your mind to us class conscious workers to sort out.

[LBird]

Marcos wrote:

What I am indicating is that there are not homogenities of thoughts among the so called materialist-idealists like you 

You really should put your glasses on, Marcos!What I write is 'idealists-materialists', but I know that 'facts' play little part in the philosophical method of the 'materialists', like you.Just like Lenin, they like to 're-write' to suit their own political purposes – hey, Marcos, that can be your job under your 'materialist' regime – you can 're-write' history, too, not just my words.

[LBird]

There is only one path, YMS. The democratic path. We're talking about power.You're an individualist, and wish to realise the bourgeois myth of being a 'free individual', all with their 'own power'.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

… irrelevancies to our material lives…

[my bold]This is Engels' theory, alan. You need to accept that you have this 'theory'. Then, you can examine it, and either consciously accept or reject it.The lives that Marx is interested in is 'our ideal-material lives'.That is, the social theory and practice of our class.Whilst you focus on 'material practice', to the pretended exclusion of its preceding 'theory', you will be unable to direct your own class conscious 'practice'.Your 'practice', then, will be bourgeois, individualist, biological sense, 'practice'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

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'.

Yes, I agree entirely, the task of assessing the quality of writing must be under democratic control, but we can't all read a book before we decide to publish it to everyone, someone has to perform the editorial function: certainly, juries, volunteer editorial boards, learned societies, etc. will have a role to play.  

No.The only 'editorial role' will be an elected one.That's what 'democratic control' means, YMS, which you then (contradicting yourself like Engels in his letters) discard, with talk of individuals and elites self-selecting themselves.What don't you get about 'democratic control'? You use the term seemingly without any political understanding of what it means regarding power.Either you're ignorant (again, like Engels), or you're using 'democratic' as a figleaf to hide your real political beliefs, about 'free individuals' and 'self-selecting elites'.It's quite simply, really. We elect editors who share our political views, and we either accept or reject their recommendations, based upon our collective judgement as to whether the editors' opinions further our needs, interests and purposes.There are no elites who 'know better' than the democratic social producers. That is the only acceptable political stance within socialism. There is not a 'special consciousness' which is not available to workers, either now or in the future. To argue otherwise, is to support Leninism, and the cadre party  which has this supposed 'special consciousness'.

[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!

[Author]

Posts