[LBird]

Dave B wrote:

If society created our world then I suppose then what needs to be asked is what created society.

Yes, and Marx's answer is 'society created society' (and continues to create society).We are self-creators.Only the religious look for a creator outside of humanity.Hence, the Religious Materialists have faith that 'Matter' created society, and thus disagree with Marx.If you read Jordan's text, it makes clear Marx's position on your question. eg:

Jordan wrote:

Nature is considered by Marx only in so far as man, the primary object of his interest, is part of nature and man’s physical and spiritual life is linked to and reflected by nature which, in turn, is transformed by man’s practical activity into an objective world.Marx’s approach to the problem of the relation between nature and man reversed the order of inquiry accepted in the materialist tradition. Instead of the inquiry of nature paving the way for the inquiry into the nature of man, it was the inquiry into the nature of man that was to guide the inquiry into the problems of nature. While the revolution in natural science of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries destroyed the idea of man and social order established in the Middle Ages, now it was the revolution in the ‘science of man’ that was to lead to a complete philosophical reassessment of our knowledge of nature.

[my bold]

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

…ooh, and the point of oxymorons is they make sense, you're trying for a contradiction in terms

No, you're wrong, again, YMS.Oxymoron means a contradiction in terms.From the Greek oxos (sharp) and moron (blunt).So, oxymoron is an oxymoron.On your 'elite majority', it's just nonsense.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…an elite majority…

This is an oxymoron, YMS.I suspect your individualist ideology is at root.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

and argue for 'matter' which is outside of our social production.

You mean like Mrax did, calling it inorganic nature?

This is a fundamental philosophical point, YMS.Marx did not call 'inorganic nature' matter.He called 'inorganic nature' inorganic nature.It was Engels who called 'inorganic nature' matter.Once again, I've said this time and again, but Religious Materialists have a faith in 'matter' which compels them to ignore Marx's epistemological views, and just like Lenin, pick up on Engels' misunderstanding.The political reason for 'matter' is an elite purpose to keep 'social production' out of the hands of the majority, expressed by their democratic control.This suited Lenin, because he argued for an elite minority with a special consciousness who 'knew matter', and for a majority who couldn't 'know matter' (otherwise, he'd've allowed a vote on its 'existence'). 'Matter' implied elitism. Marx argued this in his Theses on Feuerbach, where he stressed that 'materialism' leads to a minority of 'educators', separate from society. The SPGB has gone down this road, too, with its separation of 'specialists' from 'generalists', with the power to decide held by the 'specialists'.You too, YMS, are confusing 'matter' and 'inorganic nature'. For Marx, 'matter' was a social product, a part of 'organic nature'. If you read Jordan, some of this might become clearer.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

I think LBird has made himself clear. He believes that in the beginning there was a society  and  society  created the world. That right LBird? 

[my italic/bold]Let's see if I can have a reasonable conversation with Vin today, eh?Marx argues that 'society created our world'.I've already pointed out to YMS earlier on this thread that 'materialists' always substitute 'the' for 'our'. This makes complete sense to 'materialists', because they separate the subject and object, and argue for 'matter' which is outside of our social production.Further, I've explained that 'matter' is a substitute for 'god', and is regarded as an 'ultimate' or a 'finality', which are religious concepts.So, Vin, if you are a Religious Materialist you'll want to 'know matter' outside of human production (ie. 'the world'), but if you're a Marxist you'll start from the creation of 'matter' (ie. god) by humans in our world.As I've said many times, I'm not a Religious Materialist who has faith in 'matter', but a Democratic Communist who looks to Marx's ideas about the 'social production' of 'our world'.If you read Jordan's text, some of this might become clearer. But if you start from a disagreement with Marx, then it won't become clearer. My advice is to clarify your own views of Marx.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

…at the risk of coming across as all Jeremy Paxman…

There's no risk there, whatsoever!I think Paxman can read, for example.

[LBird]

LOL!The 'Religious Materialists' always resort to insults!

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

with all due respect, L Bird, I asked what your opinion is, not Jordan's. So again, what is your opinion, of Marx's view of where humans came from if the world is their divine creation?

With all due respect, Tim, you'll have to read what I've already said to YMS, here on this thread, which was already a repetition of what I've said many times.The mod has already given a warning about saying the same thing, over and over, so I'm taking heed.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Marx regarded humans as divine creators.

JUst one question: where do humans come from, if the world is their divine creation?

You'll have to take that up with Marx, YMS.Or, perhaps, actually read Jordan's text.

To rephrase YMS's question, where (in your opinion) did Marx think humans come from if he thought that the world was their divine creation?

Jordan, section 4 Sacred and Profane History (in book, pp. 34-7).

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Marx regarded humans as divine creators.

JUst one question: where do humans come from, if the world is their divine creation?

You'll have to take that up with Marx, YMS.Or, perhaps, actually read Jordan's text.

[LBird]

I thought that you were a 'Hebridean exophagist'?How can we trust the claims of someone who seems to merely say what they think others want to hear?Perhaps you should stick to reading bourgeois dictionaries – they'll provide the 'objective definitions' that you so desperately seek. Plus, dictionaries don't expect you to think critically.

[LBird]

YMS, I'm trying to tell you what Marx said, as him being a revolutionary thinker.If you're trying to understand him as him being a bourgeois thinker, then you won't succeed.Or, rather, you'll succeed, and 'understand' him as a bourgeois thinker who's clearly wrong.If you don't share his political and ideological beliefs, then your 'understanding' will be built upon other political and ideological beliefs.That's why I openly declare my ideology of Democratic Communism – I'm not hiding my starting point.But you are hiding yours.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Produce and create are not pure synonyms, especially given the divine connotations of create, since you don't want to add meaning by differentiating them, I need to ask questions for further clarification.

Read carefully, YMS, Very carefully, Very, very carefully.Produce and create are pure synonyms for Marx.Marx regarded humans as divine creators.So, I don't need to 'add meaning' – that's what you want to do. Your 'clarification' is an attempt to 'redefine' – why not admit it? You simply want to redefine Marx's revolutionary, democratic epistemology, into a conservative, elite epistemology, and then claim that 'Marx was wrong' and 'LBird is wrong'.

YMS wrote:

Asking questions, and re-phrasing your comments is an attempt to tease out the unclarity, especially when you seem to resort to ad hominem whenever you're challenged on any weak points in your argument.

You are not asking questions, or for re-phrasing, or teasing out unclarity, but trying to define Marx into line with your bourgeois ideology.It's not 'ad hominem' to say you 'seem to' have cloth ears, because I keep giving explanations, and you redefine or rephrase them into your terms. I think that I'm being more than reasonable, with someone who doesn't read what I write (or Marx or Jordan), but keeps bleating about 'personal attacks'.The only 'weak points' in Marx's argument are the ones you keep inserting. Why not go to church, and pray to your creator for divine guidance, and experience a personal relevation? It'll be quicker for you than social clarification.

[LBird]

Why do you bother, YMS?I've told you what I mean, and you quote a dictionary which disagrees with what I've said.What's the point of claiming you want to understand what I say, but keep resorting to assumptions that are not what I say?If you want to understand what dictionary definitions (those non-socially products, The Real Truth, eternal objects) say, why not read more dictionaries?Why pretend? Why waste my time, and yours?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Lbird, I'm trying to understand you.  

Frankly, I find this difficult to believe. You seem to want to make me say what you understand, rather than you understand what I write.Unless you start from the view that we have different ideological starting points (that is, you have to understand both my and your ideologies), which isn't agreeing with each others, but understanding each others.

YMS wrote:

Marx was very precise in his termininology…

I disagree. I think Marx was a terribly unclear writer, who didn't use the same term for the same concept consistently. That's not least of the reasons I think workers today have to make Marx much clearer for our revolutionary purposes.

YMS wrote:

… (this is what makes his works difficult to read sometimes)

No, what makes his works difficult to read is his poor writing style, combined with the complete unfamiliarity of his arguments to those brainwashed by the bourgeoisie (ie. all of us in this society). His works 'sound mad' to those who start from their bourgeois ideology. Critical thought is necessary, including about 'science', 'objective knowledge' and 'Truth'.

YMS wrote:

 Precision is important in debate.

I agree, and Marx often doesn't provide it. But you are the one changing/substituting what I write, for what you wish that I'd written.

YMS wrote:

 You can call it word play if you like, but it is quite galling after an hours debate about the state of traffic to find you were discussing Edinburgh when I was talking about Carlisle.

Little tip, YMS. When I write 'Edinburgh', don't read 'Carlisle'.

YMS wrote:

I note your quiet acceptance of 'produce' rather than create.  Can you now add transform to the mix?

Here we go, again. In this context, 'produce' and 'create' are synonyms for human activity. If you wish to reserve one for 'god and nothing' (ie. 'creation'), that's your choice, not mine. If you wish to use 'transform' to alter the meaning of 'produce/create', then you're 'adding' to confuse. If you simply mean 'produce/create', why add another term?Finally, purpose.You should take note of this.My purpose to clarify an epistemology suitable for the revolutionary proletariat, as a part of its class consciousness, to help build a democratic politics, including in the social production of scientific knowledge and truth.If you have a different purpose (individual knowledge, personal clarification, defence of bourgeois science, piss-taking, whatever), you should declare it, because it will impact upon your understanding of Marx.

[Author]

Posts