[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Just for ALB to read, once again.

The obsessive refuser has just shot himself in the foot again. I read that article long before he did as I was a member of the editorial committee at the time and can assure him that it went in with the full approval of the committee. He should also read the article on the following page on "Men, Ideas and Society":http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1973/no-829-september-1973/men-ideas-and-societyHe will see that it ,too, specifically repudiates the view

Quote:

that the brain is a kind of camera photographing the world

On the other hand, some people's brains seem more like a gramophone record.

I see that you still can't tell workers why they can't create their reality?Clearly, either you never understood what you 'fully approved' in the '70s, or you've simply got older and more conservative.Whichever it is, it's clear that the present SPGB has nothing whatsoever to do with any revolutionary thought, in politics, philosophy or physics.Which is a real shame, since even bourgeois physics seems to be coming to Marx's conclusion about us creating our reality – they've started to consider we might be the creators of time and space, never mind 'physical stuff'.Time-for-us, space-for-us, rocks-for-us. Marx's social productionism, where we, the social subject, are in a creative relationship with our world, 'nature for us', our social product, which can we thus change.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Although he says that we 'create' our objects.What does that mean if it doesn't mean we create our objective reality?

Yes, we create our objects as objects, but not as Things, we objectify them through our relationship with them.  We create our objects, but not by thought alone, but by being in the world.

So, according to your 'theory', we workers don't create our physical world?For you, 'objects' are not 'physical', but just some philosophical mutterings from the 19th century?Wow!So all the revolutionary stuff about taking control of world production, doesn't include 'physical things'? So, it's clearly best that workers leave all this 'discovering the physical' to their betters, eh?And this is what the SPGB has descended to, from its insights of the 1970s?It makes one wonder, if the 2017 SPGB is correct, what all the fuss was about, when Marx wrote about his revolutionary ideas for a democratic movement of class conscious, self-determining, workers, who will proceed to create their world.

[LBird]

LBird wrote:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1973/no-829-september-1973/marx-alienationSome extracts:

SPGB wrote:

…For Marx, what distinguishes man from other species is that man has the ability of self-creation…man has the ability to produce in excess of these needs and to do so consciously, thereby creating his own environment…It is in the working-over of inorganic nature and the practical creation of an objective world…Man's essence therefore lies in his conscious and creative activity in creating a world of objects…It can be seen, therefore, that Marx's ideas on the nature of man were in total contrast and opposition to the mechanical materialism whereby man is seen as an object of nature…There is a two-way relationship between man and his environment, and between his consciousness and his activity…It is man's ability to labour, to objectify his creative capacities in the world of things, which makes him human….

[my bold]

Just for ALB to read, once again.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

the SPGB now has a pretty mainstream Leninist view about 'matter'

Why do we continue to entertain this obsessive who continues to tell lies about us despite us repeadtedly refuting them.

You're the 'obsessive', ALB, who keeps 'telling lies about the SPGB' to workers.No matter what Marx says, you're not going to have workers voting about whether 'matter exists' or not, are you?You're an 'obsessive' Engelsian Materialist, and it allows you to argue that the class cannot change 'reality'.For 'materialists', 'matter' is 'out there', and not a product of social labour. You have Faith in 'matter', as do all Religious Materialists.What's more, your constant resort to abuse, even when I try to give you the benefit of the doubt, is very telling.You could try explaining why, according to you, workers cannot be allowed to 'create their reality' – but this would be politically disastrous for a party that claims to want to help develop workers to build their world.You haven't 'refuted' this charge against 'materialism', because it can't be done.You should try reading the SPGB's '70s publications, ALB.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

…when Marx says we make our objects, he isn't refering to the creation of the physical thing, but the relationship of subject to object…   

Although he says that we 'create' our objects.What does that mean if it doesn't mean we create our objective reality?It's only 'materialists' who insist that 'physical things' are 'out there', waiting to be 'discovered'.The 'physical' is only 'physical for a subject'. That's the whole point of Marx's social productionism.As I've said before, you're following Engels' 19th century ideas, inspired by bourgeois science, that 'physical' (or 'matter') is not 'created by a subject', and that it can be 'physical' outside of any relation to a subject (by which Marx means 'social subject', not an 'individual').The simple question is 'physical for who?'.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

so can we expect your membership application by return of post?YFSTim

Perhaps in 1973 you could've.

your views aren't the same as everyone's in the SPGB, but we don't all agree with each other on everything. 

I think the real problem is that (as far as I can tell) no-one in the SPGB of 2017 agrees with me.My point is that, from those articles, it seems possible that in the SPGB of 1973 some-one would've agreed with me.I suppose that I'm arguing that the present SPGB is very different from the past SPGB, and that it's been a change for the worse, as far as the debate about Marx's and Engels' differing views of epistemology goes.From what I can tell from posters on this site, the SPGB now has a pretty mainstream Leninist view about 'matter' ('matter' is an 'object' which is 'out there', waiting to be 'disinterestedly discovered' by the elite who have a 'special consciousness' and a 'neutral method'), whereas in 1973 at least one member was agreeing with Marx, that we humans 'create our object' (that 'matter' was socially produced in the 19th century, but now we socially produce 'energy' – it's our object to change).It's not too difficult to see that the former requires 'contemplation', whereas the latter allows for 'change'.Really, it's a debate about the social meaning of social concepts, like 'inorganic nature'.For Marx, 'inorganic nature' is a philosophical category, something external to an active consciousness, that is transformed by the activity of that consciousness, into an 'object-for' that active consciousness.This is all a bit baffling for those who couldn't give a flying fuck about philosophy, and so Engels' 'translation' of 'inorganic nature' into 'matter' (a bog-standard bourgeois science concept of the 19th century, hence its ease of adoption) was very welcome.Now, every individual could understand Marx's mysterious and frankly baffling 'philosophical' woffle – 'matter' could be touched by an individual's hand, so that cleared up that problem.Except, that Marx wasn't talking about 'matter', so Engels in effect ditched Marx's insights, about social production which we can control and thus change, and returned to bourgeois science, and its individualist and elite concerns. I've said before, in effect, 'matter' is the 'scientific' reflection of 'property'. Both can be 'owned' by individuals, and neither are subject to democratic controls. 'Matter', like 'property' just 'is', a 'thing in itself', an Eternal Truth of human existence, to which we must genuflect, as a 'Fact' to be contemplated.And don't get me started on 'material'…

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

so can we expect your membership application by return of post?YFSTim

Perhaps in 1973 you could've.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

McNeeney wrote:

two-way relationship between man and his environment

Yes, I quoted this.Perhaps you didn't read my post.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

There's also this, also drafted by Barry McNeeney:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/science-and-socialist

Thanks for that, ALB.This point stood out for me:

SPGB wrote:

The parallel between science and the way the SPGB sees the achievement of socialism should be clear. Scientists, like socialists, have to proselytize their ideas; because support for their theories comes as a result of persuasion and argument. They have to form themselves into groups, share knowledge at conferences and map out areas for new research. Conflict within the scientific community and the experimental anomalies generate a crisis, which can only be resolved by a revolution in ideas. The which applies to capitalist society, where problems such as unemployment and anomalies like starvation amid plenty can only be resolved by a political revolution. The organized, instrumental working class must, like the revolutionary scientists, have a clear idea of their identity and form a party if they are to succeed.

[my bold]The only issue (which perhaps can be cleared up) is the division between 'organized, instrumental working class' and 'revolutionary scientists'. I think that the 'revoutionary scientists' would be a subset of a class of 'revolutionary workers', rather than a separate group (ie. a group that has a power which is not under the control of the wider class).That is, 'science' would become a product of the majority, rather than remain, as it is now, a product of the minority.In other words, like all sources of power in a socialist society, 'science' would be democratised.I should also add the McNeeney is suitably critical of Engels' outdated formulations.This bit is also suitably critical of some conceptions of science and its relation to 'truth' and supposed 'objective knowledge':

SPGB wrote:

There is a long-standing row in some left-wing circles, which takes science as described above, in such matters as genetic population control (eugenics), IQ testing and the like; considering that science should be purged of these excrescences or abuses, leaving a pure residue of truth. The aim of such a. programme is the construction of a science which would be in harmony with a future socialist society. This hardly seems possible. For if you take away the influence of capitalist society then, until socialism is created, that new science would need to be created in a vacuum. While we might agree that socialists, to some extent, can create personal relationships which escape the boundaries, scientific or otherwise, of this society; we cannot see the effectiveness of trying to convert the scientific community to the radical science position. For even were this to be done, they would still remain unsocialist. Worse still, the radical science position assumes that a science could exist in the form of a perfect objective knowledge; which was the common sense assumption of the first part of this bulletin from which we were unable to prove that the V/alsby Society argument against socialism was wrong.

[my bold]There's still plenty for class conscious workers to discuss about these issues, though.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

What better place to publically advocate 'Marx's idealism-materialism' and put it to the test?

I think we both already know how the Religious Materialists will receive my apostasy.Let's face it, most RM-ers were converted to The Faith in their youth, often 50 years ago, so they're not going to start thinking critically about it, now.If they prefer 'ahistorical unchanging matter' which is outside humanity, to 'social production' which is fundamentally historical, and so can change, by the activity of humans, my quoting of Marx (and many others) won't undermine their Faith.The only 'test' of any ideology is humanity, and Religious Materialism has been found wanting. Perhaps The Faithful, growing ever smaller and older, will die out, and workers who live in the 21st century will have another critical look at Marx.Probably not, if this site is anything to go by.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Arash Azizi writes quite a good resignation from the IMT herehttp://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=13080

Just had a read – AA still hasn't got away from Leninism. They still think that the steam/piston model is relevant.The key step for a democratic workers' movement to make is away from 'Materialism', which, as Marx warned, is an inherently elitist ideology, fit only for bourgeois experts. That's the ideology that sees the 'experts' as the 'piston', and the workers as the 'steam'.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

I've invited Lbird!http://philosophyinpubs.co.uk/

I went to a PIP meeting once, about 10 years ago…… the chair was an ex-CP guy, who I'd had, err…, political differences with, during the anti-Poll Tax campaign, when he was the chair of that, too.It didn't go well.At least my son, who was with me, thought it was funny. We didn't go again.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Also, one for Lbird, Marx again describing himself as a materialist.

Yes, and I've explained why, and what he means in relation to Hegel, in very small words, just for you, time and time again.After that explanation, which says that 'Marx called himself a materialist', I've got no idea why you ignorantly persist in thinking that you parroting 'But Marx called himself a materialist' is some sort of intellectual rebuttal of what I've said.I'm going to leave it to Rosa L to take on the considerable burden of trying to explain anything to the SPGB, because I'm tired of talking to cloth ears.

[LBird]

Warning for me?Why not tell the dickheads to stop asking the same bloody questions when they've been given answers!

[LBird]

rodmanlewis wrote:

…please show us where we're going wrong.

I refer you to the SPGB in 1932, on the other thread![edit]ie. 'Is capitalism collapsing?'

[Author]

Posts