[LBird]

Oh, yeah, too, Dave.I know that this will come as an astounding shock, but…… capital is a social product.And the chapter title includes…… 'labour process' and 'production'.

[LBird]

Yes, Dave, we all know.Everyone agrees that the material for labour is provided by nature.That's the point.Now, try and work out from this thread what that point is, because I'm not saying it again.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

Post  #150 is an accurate representation of LBird's contributions. I came to similar conclusions a long time ago.Instead of 'resetting' or 'rebooting' to the same old insults, why does he not address the questions raised in post #150

Because questions can only be answered from a perspective, Vin.While YMS (and you) insist on pretending that you're not Religious Materialists, it's not possible for you to understand the replies made by a Democratic Communist (see, I don't hide my political and ideological perspective).I've patiently explained this to you, too, numerous times, but apparently RM affects your ability to read, amongst its other drawbacks (like 'faith in matter', which denies workers' democracy).

[LBird]

You haven't been discussing these things from a Marxist perspective, YMS.I've patiently explained this in great detail, often, and in small words, but you won't read what I write.If you wish to remain a proponent of Religious Materialism, I don't care, but you won't learn about Marx whilst you adhere to that ideology.How much clearer can I make this?

[LBird]

Well, now you've got that off your chest, YMS, why not leave the thread to those who:1. are Democratic Communists (ie. those who wish to see a socialist society, where the producers democratically decide their production);2. who wish to discuss how Jordan explains Marx's ideas, and whether we can correct and improve on those explanations?You're not a democrat, nor interested in workers' power, nor Marx's views on how that can come about through social production. You're an individualist whose concern is 'matter'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

No, no, no.  

Yes, yes, yes.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

To be clear: you have never proven, nor even attempted to prove, that where Marx wrote material, he meant human.

I've not only proven, but proven beyond doubt, Marx's views about social production and the democratic control of that production.The problem is, Marx's arguments can never be proven to those who disagree with Marx's views (based on his beliefs, assumptions, politics and epistemology).And as I've said time and again, the reason for this is that you don't share Marx's views, so you can't agree with (or even understand) his arguments.The only way for you (and other Religious Materialists) to understand is to examine your own ideological beliefs.But… your ideology tells you that it's not an ideology, and so you continue to argue that Marx not talking about 'humanity' (read Jordan, again), but 'matter', because that is the central concern of your ideology.For workers seeking a social revolution, only Marx's arguments about the creation of their reality by themselves makes any sense, because that means that they can change their reality.For Religious Materialists, who insist they 'know matter' outside of any socially creative activity by the producers, Marx must be made to say that 'matter' is his concern. Then, the RM-ers can separate society into two, the 'specialists' and the 'generalists', as the SPGB argues, and go on to deny democracy to the producers and simply place a 'knowing elite' in political authority.These concerns about political power play no part in the considerations of the RM-ers, because they argue that 'matter' is outside of politics. In effect, 'matter' in science plays the role of 'property' in politics. Once there is a concept that is of no concern for the masses, according to an elite, then that elite can concern themselves alone about the employment of that concept.Just keep your faith in matter, YMS, and ignore the democratic wishes of the producers, because that is the very purpose of that faith, and it's one that you've argued for, time and again. You openly say that you won't have democracy in truth production. You're an elitist, who wishes to keep workers' control out of production, who wishes to mangle Marx's revolutionary ideas, and who wishes to preserve individualism.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

YMS wrote:

Lbird wrote:

By 'material', Marx means 'human', as opposed to 'ideal' meaning 'divine'.So, by 'material production', Marx means 'social production'.

You're going to have to provide textual proof of those claims: you've made them before, but if, humpty style, Marx says what you want him to say, thios conversation is pointless.

I've provided evidence many times, YMS, but the Religious Materialists, like you, won't read it.

You've never provided evidence that where Marx wrote 'Material' he meant human.

I've constantly provided evidence from Marx's works, which are entirely about social production, not matter.To your ideology, this evidence is meaningless, because you're a Religious Materialist, who is interested in 'matter' and 'individuals', and who is not interested in Marx's concerns about democratic control of social production by the producers.You're going to have to accept that this is my answer to you, YMS, because I've tried many times before and failed due to your ideological assumptions. If you want to know more, read Jordan or Marx (or the old thread, where we discussed these issues, concerning Marx and 'material'). I'm not going over it all again with you.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

There is an ironic passage in the life of Marx and Engels. The thing is that, Engels was first the economists and the mathematician before Marx, and then Karl Marx  had to study Mathematics and Political EconomyWhen the 1844 Manuscripts were written (  also known as the Paris Notebook ) at that moment Philosophy was the main source of analysis, and that motivated Marx to go deeper into the field of Economic, and his friend Engels was the one that motivated him to do that.We have to understand that  many  concepts  written  by Marx and Engels were developed thru the march of the development of capitalism, as we can see on several of their preface, they also modified  and corrected  some of their ideas.

I couldn't agree more with what you've written here, mcolome1.Your historical account of their relationship is a good one, and your desire to understand the development, modification and correction of their ideas, is spot on.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

Marx was wrong in what he wrote many times – that's clear from his texts that appear to support the Religious Materialists. In effect, he contradicted himself.

So does that make him an materialist and 'Engelist'   

Taken in the sole context of those views, yes, it does.But taken in the wider context of what Marx also wrote, and more often, it doesn't.That's what you have to form a view about, Vin.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

By 'material', Marx means 'human', as opposed to 'ideal' meaning 'divine'.So, by 'material production', Marx means 'social production'.

You're going to have to provcide textual proof of those claims: you've made them before, but if, humpty style, Marx says what you want him to say, thios conversation is pointless.Further, can I ask: what wopuld it take to dirsprove Marx?  What would demonstrate that he was wrong on that subject?

I've provided evidence many times, YMS, but the Religious Materialists, like you, won't read it.Marx was wrong in what he wrote many times – that's clear from his texts that appear to support the Religious Materialists. In effect, he contradicted himself.Workers who look to Democratic Communism have to decide for themselves what parts of Marx's works are in the interests and for the purposes of the revolutionary proletariat in the 21st century, taking into account the developments in physics since Einstein.Marx's works can provide the basis for a revolutionary science.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

The German Ideology wrote:

Once upon a time a valiant fellow had the idea that men were drowned in water only because they were possessed with the idea of gravity. If they were to knock this notion out of their heads, say by stating it to be a superstition, a religious concept, they would be sublimely proof against any danger from water. His whole life long he fought against the illusion of gravity, of whose harmful results all statistics brought him new and manifold evidence. This valiant fellow was the type of the new revolutionary philosophers in Germany.

Sorry if this is nothing to do with it but this is from Marx which I thought was relevant.

Yes, Marx was as critical of the idealists as he was of the materialists, jdw.

[LBird]

And I had such high hopes of you, Dave.Isn't it funny that every 'materialist', without fail, when confronted with having to discuss their ideology, resort to making up stories about what Marx said.Ah well, have a nice holiday.

[LBird]

Dave B wrote:

You have lost me again L Bird ! Are you saying that Karl would never have said that there are already pre-existent ‘matterial conditions’ that already exist independent of our will and under which we have to live.Or in other words?; an 'objective' world outside of human production.

Dave, here's a bit more from Jordan.

Jordan, p. 27, wrote:

Nature an und fur sich, the external world of Engels and Lenin that exists without and independently of us and yet is completely knowable, was for Marx a ‘nullity’, a ‘nothing…devoid of sense’ or mere ‘externality’.[42] Its existence is not problematic, but the question as to the mode of its existence has no meaning. To reject this assertion and to maintain that we are able to discover what the universe itself is like, is to assume that man can attain an omniscient being’s view of the world.In Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 and The German Ideology Marx rejected as entirely wrong the theory of knowledge of the British empiricists, the French materialists, and Feuerbach, who conceived men as products of circumstances and upbringing, the human mind as a passive recipient of sensation, and perception as a mere effect wrought in the senses by outside causes. The causal theory of perception fails to explain the simplest act of cognition and applied to the whole range of human experience does not account for social change and the evolution of man. Marx was convinced that the idealists, and this meant Hegel and the Hegelians, were right in emphasizing the contribution and the role of the subject in the process of knowledge, and he put this conviction on record in the first and third of his Theses on Feuerbach.

Dave B wrote:

Can you give us some examples of the two categories of ‘material’ and ‘matter’?

For Marx, 'material' means 'human' or 'social' (as opposed to 'ideal' meaning 'divine')Thus, 'matter' is a 'social product'. Marx always links subject and object, and argues that object is produced by subject. This linking of subject/object was part and parcel of German Idealism, from Kant, through Fichte, up to Hegel, and Marx clearly took from this tradition. 

Dave B wrote:

Preferably ones that help us understand the way in which they are mutually exclusive according to your criteria.

I'm not sure where you've got this idea of 'mutual exclusivity' from, Dave – certainly not me, or Marx.

Dave B wrote:

Ie  is Neptune, cosmic background radiation and gravity non material matter then?This is very difficult for me; I feel as though I am trapped in a Henrik Ibsen play or Kafka novel.

You seem to be mixing up the levels of politics, philosophy and physics, Dave. This incomprehension is socially produced, because we are all told by the bourgeoisie that their science has a method of producing 'objective knowledge', a method only usable by an elite of experts, who 'disinterestedly discover' an 'Eternal Truth'. This ideology claims that physics is the basis of science, and that philosophy and politics follow on. As I showed in my earlier quote from Jordan, Marx reverses this bourgeois ideology and argues that social production is the basis of philosophy and science. That is, class based production, which is political, has its 'reflection' in philosophy and physics.So, to discuss physics (and Neptune, cbr, gravity and matter), we have to clarify our views about politics and philosophy. Once that is done, perhaps physics will make more sense. Of course, this is the complete opposite to what the bourgeoisie claim, and if one is minded to follow bourgeois politics and philosophy, one will reject Marx, and pretend to start from physics and 'Objective Truth'.

[LBird]

We've done this on several threads already, Dave.By 'material', Marx means 'human', as opposed to 'ideal' meaning 'divine'.So, by 'material production', Marx means 'social production'.Marx is not talking about 'matter' (or an 'objective' world outside of human production) – that was Engels' misunderstanding.As Jordan says, and I've given a quote, Marx starts from 'social production', not 'matter-in-motion'. So, any discussion of 'nature' starts from 'humanity', which is the creator of its own 'socio-natural' world.Religious Materialists do not agree with Marx, and seek their 'god' in 'matter' as a non-human creator of our world. And the faith of the Religious Materialists in 'matter' is pretty unshakeable, as you'd expect.Those who look to Marx for inspiration usually look to humanity to provide their 'faith'. Of course, if one is not a socialist nor a democrat, and has little faith in humanity, then one will be an elitist, who will deny democracy in science, and who will pretend to be merely 'discovering' a 'real world' which 'exists' outside of humanity's production of 'it'.Marx warns of this dangerous connection between 'materialists' and elitist politics, in his Theses on Feuerbach, which I've quoted many times. If we look at the Leninists, we can see that Marx was correct to see this link.

[Author]

Posts