LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
jondwhite wrote:Arash Azizi writes quite a good resignation from the IMT herehttp://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=13080Just 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'.
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.
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.
Warning for me?Why not tell the dickheads to stop asking the same bloody questions when they've been given answers!
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?'
It comes to something when I can quote the earlier SPGB in support of my political positions, and the membership still refuse to read them, and merely heap insults on what I write.No wonder youse won't read Marx, or any of the other dozens of thinkers that I've referred to.
SPGB, 1932, wrote:The choice is before you; only knowledge, desire and self-confidence are needed to realise the free society of the future. Place not your trust in others, but be assured that the work there is to do must be done by yourselves.That was the SPGB, in 1932."Place your trust in experts, and be assured that the work there is to do must be done by specialists"This is the SPGB, in 2017.
So, neither of you can read your own party's publications?No wonder you can't understand what the issues are.Heads back in sand, eh?
SPGB 1932 wrote:The Socialist Party of Great Britain answers those questions in this small pamphlet. The answer is worth the consideration of every working man or woman, as it concerns the great social problem—the problem of poverty. Our views on the crisis are set out here with the hope that workers who read them may be led on to study more seriously the principles of Socialism. One great obstacle has first to be overcome. The worker, seeing the inability of the experts to agree among themselves, may doubt his own capacity to understand the problem that other and seemingly wiser heads have found so baffling. Do not be put off by that idea. Working men and women, who make and tend the wonderful machinery of modern industry, and who carry out the intricate operations of trade and finance, have powers of thought that are well able to grasp the basic problems of politics and economics. We who address you are also workers, and we know that only the lack of desire and of confidence has hitherto prevented the mass of the workers from thinking these things out for themselves.The reader is asked to remember that this pamphlet is not merely the opinion of an individual—it is the view of the Socialist Party.[my bold]How did the SPGB get from such a good perspective in 1932, to the anti-democratic, anti-worker, pro-elite 'specialist' nonsense of 2017?
rodmanlewis wrote:What is the purpose of your participation in this forum, other than to show the SPGB to be wrong?My purpose is to develop the social theory and practice of the democratic, revolutionary proletariat, not 'to show the SPGB to be wrong'. That is a mere by-product of my purpose, that has emerged during our discussions.
rml wrote:Either socialist theory as expounded by us is defective, or socialism isn't possible anyway.Yes, I agree, either/or.Since I think that 'socialism is possible', then the 'socialist [sic] theory expounded by you is defective'.
rml wrote:What is your solution to the major problems that beset our world today?The same solution as Marx and Engels, and millions of workers since – the democratic control of production by the producers themselves: that is, socialism.Having said that, you'd think that there would be mostly agreement between me and the SPGB.But, having tried to discuss 'socialism' with the SPGB, I find no mention of workers, proletariat, bourgeoisie, Marx, democracy, power – all the issues that I would presupppose that any 'socialist' would be keen on discussing, so as to build a 'theory' which can then be put into 'practice'.So, I'm compelled to 'show the SPGB to be wrong' – but the SPGB (or even individual members, initially) can change its Religious Materialist ideas. Religious Materialism leads to elite power – that's why the Leninists (and the rest of the 2nd International) espoused 'materialism'. Neither the 2nd International nor Lenin had any intention whatsoever in 'allowing' workers to decide for themselves about the creation of their world. It was to be left to 'specialists'. Marx warned about this connection between 'materialism' and 'elitism' in his Theses on Feuerbach.
mcolome1 wrote:This is really funny. We have about 2,697 views and 208 reply on this topics…There's a good reason for that, mcolome1.The threads that I participate in are actually thought-provoking, whereas those by just SPGB members/followers just spout the usual, old, outdated, 19th century nonsense that even the bourgeoisie have got past. Even the religious thinkers in science are more advanced than the SPGB.Which is ironic, given the obsession by Religious Materialists with other religions.It mightn't be too serious, if there was some evidence of anyone in the SPGB taking a serious interest in these issues, but it seems that the SPGB is like a cult, dedicated to matter, practicalities, individuals, anti-intellectualism……the only debate which stimulates thought based upon Marx's ideas is in the threads I generate. Which doesn't give me any satisfaction whatsoever, because I'm trying to develop my own thinking at the same time as other Democratic Communists.Mind you, that's probably the problem… none of youse are Democrats or Communists/Socialists, but 'specialists'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Logic is not based on an ideology: those who claim processes are ideological are usually trying to hide something.[my bold]Hmmm…
YMS wrote:Ideology is based on premises (and unstated presuppositions), [whereas, in contrast] logic is [merely] a set of procedural rules.[my bold]Hmmmmmm…
YMS wrote:Nothing can be two mutually exclusive things…[my bold]Sounds like a 'premise', an 'unstated presupposition' an 'ideological' definition, YMS. Tell me, where do your 'rules' come from? The planet 'Rules', outside of any human social consciousness?
YMS wrote:… else explain how someone can be pregnat and not pregnant at the same time.A sly switch from 'nothing' to 'something' there, YMS.It's pitiful. Your ideology. And your (supposed) non-human 'logic'.It's elitist bluffing at its best.
Young Master Smeet wrote:If objects are produced by humanity, they cannot be independent of humanity, such is basic logic.No, 'your logic', YMS, which is based upon an ideology.
YMS wrote:Yet marx says they are independent of humanity.Can anyone else point out how something can be 'independent' and 'not independent'? How Marx argues both?It's not too difficult for anyone who's been reading so far.
For those readers keen to see just where YMS is going wrong, but can't be arsed to read Marx:
Marx, Theses on Feuerbach 1, wrote:The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism…[my bold]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htmYMS wants to separate his 'object' from any producing 'subject'. This is 19th century ideology. And Marx went beyond it.
