[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.

[LBird]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

Hmm.  well I guess I thought my focus included and required democratic discussion instead of lacking it.  Maybe we have a different idea of "democratic discussion".   If you use this google document and simply write in to the document "I plan on planting potatoes next fall, Anyone want to vote yes or no on my plan", then you've met the requirements for free access and for anyone to vote on it.  So to me as soon as even one person opens that google document and adds a comment saying "I agree you should plant potatoes next fall", then it's become a democratic decision.  exactly what form of democracy, is undefined and probably up to the person planting the potatoes how to count the votes.  Maybe the potatoe farmer weights some people who farm nearby as more influential in the decision than someone in another nation on the other side of the world?  maybe the potatoe farmer just wants a minimum of 15 votes and majority of them for any single crop.  It's really up to the potatoe farmer what form of government and decision making to use for her or himself.  Probably the potatoe farmer gives him or herself a veto option so if most of the people suggest she plant mushrooms in the desert she doesn't have to.  Instead of writing "I agree you should plant potatoes next fall", you or I couild write, "I think you should plant corn next fall" and then we have a democratic discussion in addition to the vote for a democratic decision making.   There would be uncertainties and difficulties with such as system, such as how do you find out about the url for google doc to vote, which is analogous to the uncertainty of the old school "where do I vote for what should be in the general store" type question.   

Yes, I agree with you that 'we have a different idea of "democratic discussion"', Steve.In terms simple enough for our joint 5 year old, you use 'I' where I would use 'We'.'Democratic discussion' is not individuals voting without first discussing, but voting after collective discussion.Your example seems to imply an individual making an individual decision, without any collective input. For you, the 'collective' is a simple aggregation of individual votes from minds already made up, whereas for me the 'collective' is a discussion, where any individual might change their mind.As I've said before, these differing views of ours are rooted in our ideological views.

[LBird]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

I reather enjoyed and appreciate your willingness to explain to me like I'm 5 sometimes. You seem to actually understand most of the concepts I put forward and your agreements or disagreements I find enlightening.  I see a lot of other posters as not being as good at understanding the concepts in plain engllish and I think a lot of them end up loading their political terminology with a lot of political bias and personalized definitions.  I wonder how many of these discussions are definition disputes and framing arguments?  Anyway thanks for your time for the reply worth reading.

Steve, I wish a few more 'Marxist' writers would 'explain to me like I'm 5' all of the time!In fact, I've already argued that much of what passes as 'academic' thought is simply a way of not explaining. Most academics try to avoid explaining simply because if most workers ever get to understand what academics believe, think and write, they'd fall about laughing. To put it in the vernacular, having been myself an uneducated adult worker who eventually got to talk to academics, most of them are as thick as pigshit! [is that 'plain English' enough?] They are not even Democratic Communists, so they've got a lot further to go than we have in their socio-political development! I've had many more thoughtful, stimulating and happy conversations in pubs than I've had in universities. As a consequence of these proletarian experiences, I think that workers are going to have to set up their own educational structures, with a focus on democracy within them. I had hoped to develop these very initial thoughts by discussing with the SPGB, but from what I can tell here, the SPGB seem to be cheerleaders for the right of bourgeois academics to be 'disinterested elite individuals' who have a 'special educational consciousness' which entitles them, and them alone, to dictate to workers. Of course, this is all hidden under the bourgeois ideological cover of 'Academic Freedom' and 'Free Thought', which 'democratic control and accountability' will destroy.I've had a read of your post, and once again I'll simply say that I'm a Democratic Communist, and so your focus on 'individuals' and your lack of any 'democratic discussion and decision-making' leads me to think we are quite a way apart in our political views and ideological beliefs. Perhaps one key issue with which I'm closer to the SPGB is the issue of 'exchange', which plays a part in your views. I believe in 'free access' Communism, with any uncertainties and difficulties in that concept being cleared up by democratic discussion by the future class conscious revolutionary proletariat.Thanks, too, for your comradely words.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

You mean he died before the German Ideology was published (1932)?

Yes, and before a great deal else of Marx's 'earlier works' was published.Which just goes to show, even on the basis of what Marx had published, basically Capital alone, many thinkers prior to World War 1 were able to discern where Engels had gone wrong, and why 'materialism' was proving to be an ideology for elites, just as Marx had argued in his Theses on Feuerbach.Many were on to Lenin, well before 1917. Materialism and Empirio-criticism was based upon Engels' ideas, not Marx's. That's why Lenin had to invent the unity 'Marx-Engels', to pretend that these two very different thinkers were one and the same, and thus quotes from Engels alone could be justified.

[LBird]

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?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

For a few years now, LBird, you have been offering a critique of the SPGB.Can i suggest you put it to the workers now by sharing it with them. Is it possible for you to re-format your case into something that is in a more readable form rather than disjointed by the cut and thrust of a forum exchange.As others have done and demonstrated on this list, it is possible to create your own web-pages and present your ideas and interpretations of other thinkers' ideas thus bring the arguments to a wider audience of workers.They will then decide exactly how necessary this debate is to them.

I know that you've asked for this before, alan, and I think that I've said before that my aim when I first started discussing these political issues here, was to engage in a conversation within which we all (including me) learned together how to present Marx's ideas in a format more suitable for (what the SPGB seems to call) 'generalists'.Unfortunately, this hasn't happened, because I've, to my surprise, discovered that the main ideology within the SPGB is Engels' 'materialism'. I've tried to discuss this, but it's not possible to discuss Marx's 'social production' with those who adhere to 'materialism', because this requires a religious faith in 'matter'. I'm by no means whatsoever the first to say this – in fact, since the late 19th century, many thinkers have pointed this out. I've given direct quotes from many, and links to wider passages for context, and recommendations for reading of even more. All to no avail. 'Materialists' don't discuss why humans invented 'matter', and soon resort to insults of those who question their faith in this 'god'.[quote-alan]You know my attitude for i have said it before…if i was sitting with you, Robbo and YMS,  i would have, by now, changed tables. Actually, it could have gotten to the stage where i would have gone on to switch pubs. [/quote]And there's your answer, alan.Whilst even workers like you 'switch pubs', rather than discuss why you have faith in 'matter', and who gave you that faith, anything I write here makes no impression.No 'web page' or 'wider audience' (or newspaper or pamphlet) can make you ask 'why'. The curiosity and desire to read a 'web page', or any other medium, has to come from workers like you, as they ponder why the epistemology and politics of Lenin are still so widespread amongst 'socialists'. Like, it seems, within the SPGB.If you are already convinced that either it is of no interest to you, or that I'm a 'troll', what's the point of you even suggesting I work even harder and spend more time on these issues? For me, the 'cut and thrust' of this 'forum exchange' provides suitable stimulus to keep me digging deeper and reading wider. I'd like to carry others along on the journey, but it's their choice.I can't make 'curiosity' in others. 'Matter' requires faith, not curiosity, comrade.

[LBird]

Steve-SanFrancisco-UserExperienceResearchSpecialist wrote:

I humbly suggest that the "limits" being discussed seem to me internally imposed limits of information processing and nature.

No, Steve, we're talking at political cross-purposes.Your 'internally imposed' is referring to 'individuals', whereas, being a Democratic Communist, I'm referring to 'social production'.If you wish to start from 'individuals', that's fine, but you can't understand what I'm arguing if you do so, because I'm starting from 'social production'.

Steve wrote:

for example the limit on how many things you can vote on in a day or the limit of how many people would want to vote on some trivial decision far away.  the "elite" in this case would be some sort of information scientist or logistics expert who studies questions and solves problems like "how many people should vote on this and how".  In effect this does create a class of individuals with technical knowledge, but that does not necessarily make that class of individuals more influential in the decision outcome, except for decisions within their area of specialty.  So a specialist might determine the number of people needed to make a quarum and count the attendees at a meeting for example.

No, under Democratic Communism, 'specialists' will have to explain themselves to the majority, and then the majority takes the decision, based upon the interests, needs and purposes of the majority. 'Specialists' cannot determine those of the majority. If the 'Specialists' claim not to be able to explain themselves, or that the majority are too ignorant/incapable/uneducated to make decisions for themselves, then the 'Specialist' would be voted out of their position of power within their specialism. After all, they'd've been elected by the majority in the first place.

Steve wrote:

Or so it seems to me.  I suspect it's just my interpretation.  No response from you is understood by me as indicating this comment was not valued as worth the time reading.   

No, I'm always willing to explain why I argue the way I do, and openly reveal upon which political ideology my arguments are based.If you disagree with me, it's likely to be because we don't share the same political ideology. Hope this helps.

[Author]

Posts