LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:so you can't make up (again and again), what Marx and I supposedly say.
That is really pathetic.Anyway to stick to the point. Do you believe that there is an objective reality that exists independent of society? Or do you still believe that the moon only came into existence when it was socially produced?
You'll have to read Marx, Vin. You're not going to take my word for it, so it's pointless me continuing to explain Marx to you.Marx argues that we create our reality. You don't agree with Marx, and so you won't agree with me.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Vin wrote:LBird wrote:Marx didn't say 'the world only exists in our minds', Vin, so, no, you're wrong.No Marx didn't! You did! So there is a reality outside of our brains? If you now accept this then you are making progress. What about the proletariate ruling in communism to prevent 'elite' groups from taking control? And the worldwide vote on the truth? Still sticking to those?Oh and the organised social violence??
Now where getting to the awkward bit for him, expect abuse followed by silence
There's nothing 'awkward' about Marx's ideas about 'social production' and democracy, Tim. And you and Vin (et al) are the ones who turn to 'abuse', because you can't understand, never mind argue about, Marx's views about democratic social production. The 'silence' is because I get fed up saying the same things to you and Vin, and being abused for it. I'm only doing this again in the hope that there is a new audience for Marx's ideas about social production, history and change, and our part in it.Keep listening to what 'matter' tells you, Tim, if that suits you. But I'm compelled to tell workers that rocks do not talk to Tim, Vin, or any other 'materialist'.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:Marx didn't say 'the world only exists in our minds', Vin, so, no, you're wrong.No Marx didn't! You did!
No, I didn't, Vin. You're making that up. Neither Marx nor I said that.Engels said that if one wasn't a 'materialist', that they must be an 'idealist', because for Engels there were only two options. That's where you're getting your ideology from. You should read Engels' Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy, pp. 17-19, to discover why you say what you do.
Vin wrote:So there is a reality outside of our brains? If you now accept this then you are making progress.Let's take this slowly, so you can't make up (again and again), what Marx and I supposedly say.'Reality' is a human creation. 'Reality' is socially produced, and so has a history. And since we create 'reality', by our social theory and practice, we can change it. And those changes should be democratically decided upon.This is all Marx: social production, history, social theory and practice, change by us, democracy.You should read Marx some time, Vin. You might be suprised, and actually learn something.So, to directly answer your question in your terms, 'the reality outside of our brains' is our product, 'reality-for-us'.
Vin wrote:Let me help you get started – the world only exists in our minds – right?Marx didn't say 'the world only exists in our minds', Vin, so, no, you're wrong.You're the one who needs 'help to get started' in understanding Marx's ideas about 'social production' and the necessity for that production to be democratic.But, as usual, you'd rather abuse Marxists, as being 'idealists'. It's an old 'materialist' accusation, Vin. For the materialists, like you, the world is divided into two: 'good/bad', 'right/wrong', 'true/false'… oh, and from Engels, 'idealism/materialism'.You won't be surprised to find that Lenin liked that accusation, too.
twc wrote:LBird expresses hostility to materialism.In his need to drive a wedge between Marx and Engels, he blames Engels for distorting Marx with materialistic accounts…..I wonder if LBird might amuse us by clearly explaining for our delight:what’s wrong with this account?whether Marx would ever have described it this way, or written anything remotely like this?We've had a long debate on this in the past, twc, but, like the rest here, instead of it being a comradely one, you descend into abuse – in fact, just like Tim has just said, youse go 'straight to insult', now.Anyway, and I've said this before, but here goes, once again, for any newbies who haven't read it before.Yes, I'm 'hostile to materialism', as was Marx.The 'wedge between Marx and Engels' was established by Engels, who thought that Marx was talking about 'matter', when Marx used the term 'material'. Marx, in his debates during the 1840s, was contrasting the 'divine production' of the Idealists with 'human passive suffering' of the Materialists. Marx effected a unity of Idealism-Materialism, taking something from both, and rejecting something from both. He realised that the Idealists were correct about 'activity', and thus united the 'active' with 'the human', but rejected the 'divine' and the 'passive'. Thus, he argued for an active humanity, or 'social production'. That is, humans create their world. They are their own gods of creation.Engels didn't understand this, and reverted to the earlier 'materialism', and its concerns with 'matter' and a 'determinism' external to human causation.The blame for this, IMO, lies at least partly with Marx, because his writings are very unclear, contradictory, and so, often, wrong by his own standards. Plus, Engels lack of understanding of the subtleties of epistemology, added to the confusion. Both are to blame, but it's Engels version, the passive political consequences of which that, at the end, he tried to avoid, in his letters, that has come down to us as 'Marxism'.The role for Democratic Communists in the 21st century is to sort out this mess, and to give a much clearer account of Marx's ideas, and so provide a political, philosophical and ideological basis for his core belief: that the social producers, since they are the producers, can change their world.Finally, over the last 4 years, I've given textual references to Marx, Engels, and dozens of other thinkers and commentators, from the 19th century to this, so if you want evidence, twc, you're going to have to re-read what I've written many times.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:LBird wrote:Hi Sympo, above is yet another example from a follower of Engels' 'materialism', who are unable to argue with Marxists, and so are forced to make false statements about Marxists.Apparently, 'water' and 'wine' talk to Tim, and so he doesn't need to explain to you how he knows 'water' or 'wine'.If you ask him, he won't mention the socio-historical production of knowledge, but will simply say 'he knows', as an 'individual', using his 'biological senses'. He won't mention Marx, society, workers or democracy – or, indeed, scientific method.And he seems to think that ignorance of these issues within his party will impress workers enough to join.The fruits of 'materialism'.Hi Sympo, sorry, that shoud have read the insane, narcissistic, love child of Mother Theresa and Paul Daniels. You'll like him, but not a lot.
Hi Tim, still unable to engage in a philosophical debate, eh?Still, whilst your god 'matter' gets on with building for socialism, you can lie back and continue to denigrate Marxists, who insist upon workers' democracy, and wait for 'material conditions' to do what you should be doing.The fruits of 'materialism', personified. Well done, Tim!
gnome wrote:ALB wrote:Sooner or later humanity will come to work this out. I make no prediction as to when (or, to be truthful, how), though, only that it will happen.Providing of course that humanity doesn't destroy itself in the meantime…
That's the good thing about 'materialism', gnome – one doesn't have to talk about humanity!One can simply let 'matter' get on with 'determining' humanity's actions.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:LBird wrote:ALB wrote:The proposition of the materialist conception of history …is that in the end economic/productive relations, both technological and social, are more decisive than politics. …. This is not a theory of economic determinism and what actually happens in history depends on what people do, especially how political power is exercised.[my bold]ALB's statement reflects Engels' views (and not Marx's), and is just as confused as are the letters that Engels wrote on the subject.Marx's view is that social theory and practice determines 'history'.Or, the social theory and practice of production determines the social theory and practice of politics.In other words, humans can change both social production and politics. Humans, using both ideas and practice, can override both technology and 'the material/economic'.
Hi Sympo, I don't know how familiar you are with L Bird, he believes that we can turn water into wine, as long as we vote for it. If you can imagine the insane love child of Mother Theresa and Paul Daniels, your just about there.
Hi Sympo, above is yet another example from a follower of Engels' 'materialism', who are unable to argue with Marxists, and so are forced to make false statements about Marxists.Apparently, 'water' and 'wine' talk to Tim, and so he doesn't need to explain to you how he knows 'water' or 'wine'.If you ask him, he won't mention the socio-historical production of knowledge, but will simply say 'he knows', as an 'individual', using his 'biological senses'. He won't mention Marx, society, workers or democracy – or, indeed, scientific method.And he seems to think that ignorance of these issues within his party will impress workers enough to join.The fruits of 'materialism'.
ALB wrote:The proposition of the materialist conception of history …is that in the end economic/productive relations, both technological and social, are more decisive than politics. …. This is not a theory of economic determinism and what actually happens in history depends on what people do, especially how political power is exercised.[my bold]ALB's statement reflects Engels' views (and not Marx's), and is just as confused as are the letters that Engels wrote on the subject.Marx's view is that social theory and practice determines 'history'.Or, the social theory and practice of production determines the social theory and practice of politics.In other words, humans can change both social production and politics. Humans, using both ideas and practice, can override both technology and 'the material/economic'.
Sympo, first you're going to have to define 'Historical Materialism'.Since the 19th century, many people have thought that HM is something to do with Marx, but a sizeable minority regard HM as a product of Engels' views.It's no surprise that you've linked to a letter by Engels (as many see his work as the starting point of any discussion about HM), but at least you now know that some would regard your assumption as illegitimate.
Vin wrote:The expelled member says: The SPGB is a roadblock, not a help, to the working class. Partly by design – the Hostility Clause, for example was a dead letter as soon as we came back empty-handed from the Second International in 1904 – but partly from progressive degeneration of its personnel. There is in particular no understanding of Marxism. A money fetish has been substituted for the suppression of Capital, an anarchist rejection of combination substituted for the pursuit of "world-historical character", a fully formed castle in the sky substituted for what should never have been more than a direction of travel, an initial rough sketch of what is a set of projected relationships, not a place. And so forth. Everywhere one finds abstractions. And as this election has shown most clearly – the SPGB's road to revolution does not start where the working class *is*. The class is expected to shift onto the Party's pre-prepared ground, held vacant since the late 19th century. Only then will it follow the golden road to socialism, which again is fully formed and located … in the 19th century.[my bold]I know that you won't thank me for my support, Vin, but here it is, anyway.No understanding of Marxism – only mindless adherence to Engels' 'materialism', the 'progressive degeneration'.An anarchist rejection of combination – only bourgeois individualism and 'freedom' from society's control of production.The class is expected to shift onto the Party's pre-prepared ground, held vacant since the late 19th century – the fruits of materialism, as Marx warned. The belief that 'specialists' in consciousness supposedly already know what workers haven't even yet built.The root of this 19th century disease is Religious Materialism. The result is that the party 'knows Truth', and the members must be watched for dissent.
Vin wrote:How long are we going to allow this ant-working class and anti-SPGB propaganda permeate our forum? He is repeating the same lies and accustaions.The problem, Vin, is if you start from 'criticism' equalling 'propaganda, lies and accusations', then you're making my argument, about the pointlessness of a WSJ, for me.I suppose you could get Goebbels to be editor, and send me to suffer the judgement of Freisler.You'd have to find someone who can argue with me, to make a WSJ worthwhile.
The problem with the idea for a 'theoretical' journal, similar to the SWP's ISJ, is that these sorts of publications necessarily involve discussions about philosophy, ontology, epistemology, etc., and involve questioning concepts, categories, assumptions, axioms, etc., from a critical stance.If one tends to 'the practical', and avoids any talk of prior 'theory', then a journal of this type will be anathema.And specifically, the whole culture of the SPGB seems to be one of 'being practical', and quite unquestioning of, for example, concept formation, and tends to simply accept the 'theory' that society holds at present, as being completely unproblematic, for example, regarding 'science'.All this is very far from Marx's views about the socio-historic production of ideas, and their practical implementation by societies at a specific time. That is, 'social theory and practice'.In my view, any party that pretends to have any theoretical understanding of its practice, would require a journal of this type. But, given what I've encountered on this site (and I admit that the wider party might have a very different approach), a WSJ would be both little-read and little-understood.Having made that criticism, personally I'd welcome a theoretical journal that could combat the 'materialist' ideas of the SWP and other Leninist/Trotskyist parties. But… if it were to merely echo the anti-democratic 'materialist' politics of the ISJ, lauding 'specialists', what's the point?
This article, Engels' Marxism, John Rees, is taken from the ISJ 65 Special Issue December 1994, pp. 47-82.The whole issue addresses Engels' ideas, and also includes:Frederick Engels: life of a revolutionary, Lindsey German, pp. 3-46;Engels and the origins of human society, Chris Harman, pp. 83-142;Engels and natural science, Paul McGarr, pp. 143-176.It's certainly worth a read, and most 'materialists' will agree with the SWP.I was a member of the SWP when it was published, but didn't have the knowledge then, to challenge the SWP's arguments.How times have changed.
