[LBird]

Wez wrote:

I found Bertell Ollman's book 'Dance of the Dialectic' particularly helpful with aspects of Marx's epistemology.

But not 'particularly helpful' with others?

Ollman, DotD, p. 4, wrote:

And when I sought to construct my own definitions from the way Marx used his key concepts in his writings, I was shocked to discover that their apparent meanings varied with the context, often considerably. I was not the first, of course, to note or to be bothered by the elastic quality of Marx’s meanings. Vilfredo Pareto, the Italian sociologist, provide the classic statement of this problem long ago when he said, “Marx’s words are like bats. One can see in them both birds and mice” (1902).

This 'problem' is most severe in relation to Marx's use of the concept 'material'.Engels' material bat was a bird of 'matter'.Others' material bat was a mouse of 'social production'.As to which bat is most useful for the interests and purposes of the proletariat, democratically building for the 'social production' of socialism…

[LBird]

Wez wrote:

It is to the credit of comrades that they continue to indulge Mr. Bird. However when he rises from his keyboard and feeds his body, looks both ways before crossing the road and puts on an extra layer for the frosty mornings he becomes, miraculously, a materialist. Even his/ or is it her imagination would be unavailable without the help of some grey material called a brain.

Have you bothered to read anything that Jordan wrote?No?What a surprise – another Religious Materialist displays just what the lack of 'imaginative grey material' leads to.Ignorance.

[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.

[Author]

Posts