[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

Again putting more logs in the fire. Don't we have enoough discussion about the same shit ?  This forum is just a real wasting of time. What about real issues related to the working class ? 

Why not try reading and learning, mcolome1?It's not too edifying to see socialists praising ignorance.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I'd suggest, it is because you cannot change knowing without changing being, being in the world preceeds knowing (social being determines social consciousness, as Engels said).

[my bold and italic]You're expressing an ideology, YMS, seemingly unknowingly. Ironic, eh?You're also confused (as was Engels, regarding Marx).In bold, 'being precedes knowing';In italic, 'social being precedes knowing'.In the former ideology, that in bold, 'being' is not 'conscious' (otherwise, it could not 'precede knowing').In the latter ideology, that in italic, 'social being' is 'conscious' (so 'being' alone cannot 'precede knowing').You wish Marx had said 'being determines social consciousness', but he said 'social being'.'Being' is a concept within 'materialism'.'Social being' is a concept within 'idealism-materialism'.You follow Engels' 'materialism', YMS, which separates 'being' and 'consciousness', object from subject.I follow Marx's 'idealism-materialism', which relates 'being and consciousness', object and subject.Because you separate, you can imagine a world of 'object' without a 'subject'; or, 'being' without 'consciousness'. Having imagined this, you then believe you can 'know' being, without any 'consciousness' being involved. Thus, you argue, as do all 'materialists', that 'being' precedes 'consciousness'.I know that this will be wasted on you, from the tone of rest of your post, but perhaps others will learn.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

But that when challenged, Lbird has never substantiated:1) That materialism necesarilly posits the requirement a special consciousness 2) That such consciousness is 'not available to all.'3) That it is necessarilly elitist.I have further pointed out in the past that materialism, as opposed to the authoritarian theory of truth, means that everybody can know the world without needing a special consciousness, precisely the opposite: Lbird has never rebutted that claim.

[my bold]So, if 'everybody can know', why can't they vote to change what they know?If it's because there is a difference between 'the world' and what 'they know of the world', who 'knows the world' that they collectively don't?Marx pointed this out in his Theses on Feuerbach. For 'materialism', there has to be an elite who 'know the world', who can tell the majority that they are wrong in their own determination of what 'everybody can know'.This 'materialist' elite will not have democracy within their society. They can't, because the majority would be able to impose their own 'knowledge of their world', which they elite 'materialists' hold that only they have the power to 'know'.This is why Lenin supported Engels' misunderstanding of Marx, and why 'materialism' is an ideology of an elite.

YMS wrote:

(p.s. I did read the uninteresting article – I've never maintained Lbird was unique in discussing such matters, but more pertinently that he was treading ground adequately covered by Williams and Thompson long ago and the general thrust of cultural materialism)

So, if you find the article 'uninteresting', why keep asking me to explain what you find 'uninteresting'?Just accept that you think you know better than 'everybody', and that for you, 'everybody' can't vote to change your own personal, individual 'knowledge', because you claim to 'know reality', by a biological method, and you don't agree with the social production of knowledge, which, in a democratic society like socialism, can only be a democratic product.You are a 'materialist' to protect your biological, individual right to 'know reality'. It's simple bourgeois philosophy, YMS. You're a product of a society that has told you this, all your life, and you uncritically believe it.'Materialism' is 'common sense', in a class society which abhors democratic production.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

 'Materialism' is the perfect ideology for elitists, like Lenin, because it posits a 'special consciousness', not available to all and so not democratic, by which the elite 'know matter'. 

Can I just quietly point out you have never substantiated this claim.

There are none so blind as those who will not see!If you can tell me what you haven't understood about what I've 'never substantiated', I'll try again (mod permitting).But… if you're going to stick to your (unacknowledged?) 'materialism', then these well-established 'claims' (since the late 19th century) will remain 'unsubstantiated-for-materialists'.Have you read the LibCom article link? At least it'll give you a rest and change from what I'm writing, and show that this isn't just all 'my' theory.

[LBird]

Perhaps this link will provide some food for thought, for those disposed to have a chew.Between Marx, Marxism, and Marxisms – ways of reading Marx’s theory – Ingo Elbehttp://libcom.org/library/between-marx-marxism-marxisms-%E2%80%93-ways-reading-marx%E2%80%99s-theory-ingo-elbe

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

There is, of course, also this famous circular of 1879 to the German Party signed by both Marx AND Engels (which moreover was actually written by Engels himself) which gives the lie  to LBird's, as usual, groundless speculations.   Leninist vanguardism had its orgins in part in the emergent trend towards vanguardism and elitism within the broader Social Democratic movement as a whole , to which trend both Marx AND Engels defiantly expressed their uncompromising opposition.

mcolome1 wrote:

Both Marx and Engels opposed elitism and the concept of leadership 

One day, lads, you're going to have to read what I write, rather than arguing with a myth of your own making.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

On this issue, I thought the detractors of Engels were the ones who noted his adherence to Social Democrats, and Marx was the more rrrrevolutionary of the two, and that Lenin rediscovered the true Marx, past the social democrat turns of Engels.

You'll have to identify for yourself 'the detractors of Engels', YMS, if you think there is a single 'the'.As to the separate issue of the relationship between Lenin and Marx, the supporters of Lenin of course argue that 'Lenin rediscovered the true Marx'.There is, however, a strand of thought that argues that Lenin has nothing whatsoever to do with Marx, but that Lenin took his elitist 'materialism' from Engels. 'Materialism' is the perfect ideology for elitists, like Lenin, because it posits a 'special consciousness', not available to all and so not democratic, by which the elite 'know matter'. The similarities between such an ideology and the political concept of 'party consciousness' should be obvious.Marx warned against 'materialism' and its divisive effects within society, in his Theses on Feuerbach.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

 I think you have a pathological obsession with Engels

And I think you have a pathological obsession with defending Engels' 'Materialism', mcolome1.As did Lenin.

[LBird]

Another way of looking at this, is to say that Lenin didn't so much 'distort Marx' as 'follow Engels'.Whatever Lenin claimed he was doing, he wasn't following Marx in any way at all.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

The original german:

Quote:

Meine dialektische Methode ist der Grundlage nach von der Hegelschen nicht nur verschieden, sondern hir direktes Gegenteil. Für Hegel ist der Denkprozeß, den er sogar unter dem Namen Idee in ein selbständiges Subjekt verwandelt, der Demiurg des Wirklichen, das nur seine äußere Erscheinung bildet. Bei mir ist umgekehrt das Ideelle nichts andres als das im Menschenkopf umgesetzte und übersetzte Materielle.

And according to google translate "umgesetzte und übersetzte" seems to be the problem (google gives both as translated), but I think -um- and uber- giving the impression of over and around put.  Nonetheless, it is certainly a lot balder than anything Engels put out.Edit: Hmm, interested: after a bit of tinkering, the Internet renders that as 'unreacted/unconverted and translated', which is very different from reflected.  Think we'd need a ruling from a German speaker.

Kline's article is centrally concerned with Marx's use of 'Materielle', and he gives 6, 8 or 9 meanings, depending on how you count them, and he comments:

Kline, p168, wrote:

…the interpretation of "das Materielle" as "material world" is highly misleading.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Let's not forget that Chucky himself published one of the most reductionistic phrases himself: "With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought."  It took the publication of the German Ideology to displace that phrasing (and note Engel's letter (above) on the same point).

Yeah, and this use of 'reflection' by Marx is discussed in George L. Kline's The Myth of Marx' Materialism, which I tried to initiate a discussion about on a previous thread. For a PDF, see:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-myth-his-materialismAlternatively, in the book Philosophical Sovietology: The Pursuit of a Science (which contains Kline's article, pp. 158-203), the phrase is discussed on page 167, with the German original, and a comment by Kline that Fowkes' (Penguin) translation is 'misleading'.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

…individuals finally…

You're going to have to unpack this for yourself, robbo.I've tried, and tried, and tried, to help…My tip is to sort out in your own mind the difference between the concept 'individuals' and 'individuals finally'.

 "Individuals finally" means that the individuals finally get to choose…

Brilliant analysis, robbo! Well, I can see that you've spent hours considering the difference between the two concepts, and if you've now satisfied yourself about the difference between, my work is done!It appears 'patronising condescension' does work with you! I'll have to try that method more often with you, you little genius.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

…individuals finally…

You're going to have to unpack this for yourself, robbo.I've tried, and tried, and tried, to help…My tip is to sort out in your own mind the difference between the concept 'individuals' and 'individuals finally'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_10_27.htmThis letter may be of interest.  But the point is, Marx and Engels wrote the German ideology together (and after the philosophical manuscripts, 1846), so that chapter on Materialism does belong to them both.This seems apposite:https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1893/letters/93_07_14.htm

We've been through this discussion many times, YMS. I'm not an Engelsist.I gave the reading recommendation so that any comrades wanting to try to come to grips with the differences between Marx and Engels have another source of information.If anyone is already convinced that 'Marx-Engels' is 'joint-individual', then that's fine by me. They can ignore my recommendation.

[LBird]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Communism means from EACH (individual) according to the ability, to EACH (individual) acording to their needs.

So, who determines 'ability' and 'needs', YMS?Isolated individuals or social producers?How are these social products made?By ahistoric, asocial personal intuition, or by democratic discussion?

To me it seems self evident that if the boundary condition for all exchanges is that they must meet the following conditions:1) EACH individually acording to their personal mix of abilities and prefferences2) EACH according to their individual neads and wants and interests.3) EACH individual has free association and can make or refuse any exchange or offer regarding abilities and prefereences to any other indivdiual.Then EACH individual determines ability and needs.  

Again, we disagree on this, Steve.I'm a Democratic Communist, whose concern, like Marx's, is with social production.So, my answers to 'who' is 'social producers', and 'how' is 'democratic discussion'.Your answers are 'individuals' and 'individual choice'.Hope this clarifies our ideological differences. I'm not an 'individualist', and I've already commented upon your ideological notion of 'exchange', about which my position is like the SPGB's.

[Author]

Posts