[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

If you read what I've written, robbo, then we do actually produce our 'physical world'.Jordan supports this view of Marx's epistemology.If you're not interested in this, why keep posting?

 Like I said, LBird, your way of expressing yourself is misleading.  We don't actually "produce" the physical world because, taken literally, that would mean human beings predate the physical world in which they find themselves. Unless you've gone bonkers that is obviously not what you mean but you need to say what you mean more clearly without resorting to this poseur style of cod philosphy

robbo, I can't express myself more clearly. I'll put it in bold/italic for you, if it will help:We do actually "produce" our physical world.  This is what Marx argued, this is what Jordan in his book says that Marx argued, and this is what I agree that Marx argued.I've told you what the problem is, that prevents you reading what Marx, Jordan and I write: it's your 'materialist' ideology. The sooner you examine that, the sooner you'll be able to understand Marx, yourself, and why you disagree with Marx.One symptom of this is your refusal to use the concept "our physical world", which your ideology tells you should be "the physical world".The use of 'the', the definite article, is part of an ideology that claims universal application: 'the physical'. Thus, 'the physical' is external to any human activity. 'The physical' just 'is', simply 'as it is'.The use of 'our', a pronoun, is part of an ideology that claims relative social application: 'our physical'. Thus, 'our physical' is relative to (and created by) some human activity. 'Our physical' is a 'product', of a complex 'production' process, which varies with time and place.You'll either have to start studying Marx's epistemology, or keep resorting, as all 'materialists' do, to insults like 'bonkers', 'poseur' and 'cod'.I'm not being insulting when I say that it's only your ignorance that's preventing you from understanding these issues.Read Jordan's text again, and compare how a 'materialist' would understand it with how a Marxist would understand it, now that you should be able to do this.Of course, this all depends upon you being interested in doing so – I can't make you read what Marx, Jordan and I 'literally' write.

[LBird]

If you read what I've written, robbo, then we do actually produce our 'physical world'.Jordan supports this view of Marx's epistemology.If you're not interested in this, why keep posting?

[LBird]

I should add, YMS, that the selections that you've quoted from Jordan, above, actually support my argument regarding Marx's views, of social theory and practice upon inorganic nature producing organic nature, and that organic nature is thus socio-historic, and so we can change it.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

…that wavelength will continue to exist.

As I've explained, YMS, your ideology of 'materialism' starts from the belief that 'wavelength' existed, exists and will exist, without it being socially produced by humans.The alternative viewpoint, of Marx (and I think explained quite well by Jordan), is that 'wavelength' is an object created by humans, by their social theory and practice.  This is very similar to Pannekoek's view that we create the 'laws of nature'.Again, as I've said, you don't have to agree with Marx's view (although I do), but the point is to understand Marx's notion of humanity as its own creator and the creator of its own world (a socio-natural world).There's no point just repeating what you believe (ie. your ideology) about 'wavelength exists without humans', because I already understand what you're saying (as I have what all the other 'materialists' here are saying).The point is, the ideology of 'materialism' ('wavelength' exists without being brought into existence by human social theory and practice) is not the ideology of Marx's 'social productionism'.I'm not arguing with you, YMS, about your 'materialism' (you're welcome to hold whatever ideology you think best suits your political purposes), but about the differing views about Marx's ideology: clearly, Jordan doesn't show that Marx agrees with your beliefs; in fact, Jordan's explanation is counter to your 'materialist' ideological views.

[LBird]

If anyone only has a short time/interest/attention, then probably section 3 The Anthropological Conception of Nature is the part to read (in the book, pp. 27-34).

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

By any account, still, there is a physical world which we cannot re-order merely by voting.

That's the whole point of the article and Marx's ideas, YMS.We produce what we call 'physical'.The 'physical world' is a social product.If you don't agree with Marx (or Jordan's text), that's fair enough. But the belief in a 'physical world' which is not a product of human activity, is an ideology opposed to Marx's ideology.That's what the article is discussing: the 'materialist' view (which you believe in) that 'there is a physical world we cannot re-order'.The opposing view of Marx (which I believe in, and I refer to as 'idealism-materialism') is that 'there is a mental and physical world we can re-order'.The first 'contemplates' the 'physical', wheras the second aims to 'change' the 'physical'.The point that I'm trying to get across to you (and the other 'materialists') is that there are two ideologies at play here. Youse don't have to agree with a different ideology, but do you understand it?I'll reiterate this: I'm not asking for you to agree with Marx, but to understand Marx.If you understand Marx's arguments, but disagree with them, then we've achieved our aim.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I think the above quote just got caught up when I was contrasting what Jordan wrote with Marx' actual views on TRemaux and the relationship of nationality to the soil…

Marx was obviously talking nonsense about Tremaux, as Engels told him at the time.I'm afraid selective quoting from 40 years' writing is no replacement for judgement about a body of work.What about the rest of Jordan's article, which addresses Marx's core views, rather than his all-too-human slips?After all, we could simply put Marx and Engels in the box marked 'racist anti-semites', if we judged them on their mistakes.More importantly, what do you think about Jordan's general views about Marx? He clearly regards Marx as closer to the views that I've argued, of the active human creation of their reality, which is incompatible with 'materialism'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Anyway:

Jordan wrote:

In general, Marx could not have accepted an observable part of physical reality as the absolute primary factor of social action and relations, because in his view nature cannot function as a condition determining human consciousness unless it is first defined in sociocultural terms, that is, unless it is a socially and culturally mediated entity. Consequently, Marx could not and actually did not accept any explanation of social activity in any other but social terms. ‘Everything which sets men in motion’, wrote Engels, ‘must go through their minds.’[125] Marx emphasized this fact in The German Ideology to justify the view that not only circumstances make men, as the ‘old materialism’ maintained, but men also make circumstances, as the ‘new materialism’ asserted.

 

I'm not sure what point you're making, YMS, by quoting chunks of Jordan's text.Do you have a comment to make on it? Do you disagree with Jordan?

[LBird]

The only way to be 'clear then', robbo, is for you to be 'clear then' about your ideological basis.Then we can discuss Jordan's opinions about Marx, from both my Marxist perspective and your individualist perspective. In the course of those discussions, our differing views about 'democratic production' will become apparent.You'll argue for 'elite production' (that 'truth' will not be a social product) and I'll argue for 'democratic production' (that 'truth' will be a social product).Right, that's my last reply here to you on your 'imaginings', robbo. Please read Jordan's text, and we can make some progress.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

… I had previously imagined he had been saying?

I have constantly challenged your personal 'imaginings', robbo, and asked, many times, that you read what I actually write, rather than consult your own 'imaginings', but to no avail. But, it's good that you are starting to question your own 'imaginings', at least.

robbo wrote:

Perhaps with that in mind LBird might follow through with this new sense of realism that he has apparently succumbed to and comment on my scathing criticism of society-wide central  planning in the other thread on "socialism and democracy".  Because unless I am mistaken society wide central planning  a la Lenin's idea of converting society into a single office and factory is another idea that LBird previously endorsed iwtth his conception of "workers democracy"

Oh dear, you still seem to be raving about 'imaginings' of your own making, robbo.How you identify "workers' democracy" with "Lenin's central planning" says more about your ideological biases, than about mine.I suspect this is because you adhere to an 'individualist' philosophy (and unless you're lying, you are completely unconscious of your ideology), and regard 'democracy', which is a 'social' concept, as dangerous to 'individual freedom' (which is a bourgeois ideological concept). In this way, any restraints whatsoever upon 'individuals' (whether imposed by Leninist elitism or democratic decisions) is seen by you as 'central planning'.As I've said many times, I'm a Democratic Communist, influenced by Marx's ideas about social production, and so I regard 'socialism' as a society that will plan collectively its social production, in the interests of, and for the purposes of, the collective producers. This planning (an ongoing process, rather than a 'Stalinist Five Year Plan') can only be done by the participation of the whole of society, using democratic methods to make its social decisions, and decide its own interests and purposes.I can be open about my ideology, robbo, but for some reason you keep hiding yours, and alleging that 'democracy' is 'dictatorship', that "workers' democracy" is "Leninist society-wide central planning".I think, since you keep saying these things, that you're a follower of 'bourgeois individualism', and regard 'socialism' as the realisation of those ideas, rather than the Marxian concepts of "workers' democracy" and "social production".If you were open about your ideology, it would make the discussion much easier to follow, for others.Anyway, this thread is about Jordan's book, and I'd like to discuss Jordan's opinions about Marx, epistemology and materialism, with those who wish to read the text.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

… but I beg you indulge the fool.

Since you've been so humble and honest, who I am to refuse?

The Fool wrote:

Can you (answering simply yes or no) let us know if, in all of the time you have been putting forward your cockamammie idea that the whole world population should vote on every "scientific truth"…

You're wrong again here, Fool, because you're following robbo's 'cockamammie idea' about 'social production', not mine (or Marx's). You'll have to take up your question with robbo, because it's not up to me to answer for robbo's 'ideas', 'cockamammie' or not.Now, if you want to discuss Jordan's opinions about Marx, I'll continue the dialogue. But if you want to discuss robbo's opinions, then please go to robbo's new thread. I won't reply here to any more 'foolish' queries.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

The point is: we don't need to understand Marx' philosophy.  

[my bold]I'm glad that you've been so open here, YMS, because it makes the debate so much more easily understandable by other workers who wish to understand the issues raised by Jordan's book.My 'point' is: we do need to understand Marx's philosophy.One further point of clarification would be helpful, YMS. Does your 'point' represent the official 'point' of the SPGB? That is, does the SPGB consider Marx's philosophy to be helpful to workers today, or does it consider it, like you do, only a hindrance to workers' self-development?Whether you clarify the latter or not, though, we can still move forward and be open about which ideologist(s) we do think helpful for workers' self-development.I openly state that my views are heavily influenced by Marx.Could you state openly whose views of social production have influenced yours?Perhaps I can give you some help from my perspective: I think that you're heavily influenced by bourgeois thinkers who stress 'individual production', rather than 'social production'. This influence is, of course, the 'standard view' in our society, because it is the 'ruling class idea' about 'production'. So, I would go further, and argue that your 'point' is one uncritical of ruling class ideas, and that a necessary critical view is precisely why I would argue that 'we do need to understand Marx's philosophy'.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

 this problem goes deeper than me simply being an argumentative bastard. 

There is an alternative explanation, another feasible reason why everyone disagrees with you, can you guess what it is?

Fools like you, masquerading as 'socialists'?

[LBird]

The link to the book that I gave earlier is only for chapter 2, pp. 16-64, ‘Marxian Naturalism’. However, as I’m reading further, I’m coming across more views about Marx that I also agree with, besides those on the content and meaning of Marx’s work.

Jordan, p. 70, wrote:

Marx’s predilection for the obscure language of Hegel and his pseudo-technical vocabulary, rich in oracular and mystical intimations, is plain and clear; it makes some of his early writings hardly readable and some later works more involved and difficult to understand than was necessary.

This opinion certainly reflects my own; the fact is that, 133 years after his death, no Communist (group or individual) has ever produced a work that explains Marx’s ideas in a format suitable for workers who don’t have a degree in philosophy.I think that I had aspirations, when I first started posting here, to try to collectively produce such an introduction, with the help of the SPGB. I don’t think that the task is achievable by an individual, and certainly not by any so-called ‘genius bourgeois academic’ – only a group of dedicated workers, who are writing for their fellow workers, friends and neighbours, and who are guided by those fellows in their explanations (if the text can’t be understood by your mates, it’s failing), would be able to successfully produce this proletarian guide to Marx.I think now, however, given my real-life experiences with the SWP, Militant, RCP, Workers’ Power, etc., and my online contacts with LibCom, the SPGB and the ICC, that I’m never going to be a part of this production. Perhaps I can put some of that down to my failings (my combative style of questioning and debate, even when I’m not descending to the level of my childish detractors, is off-putting to many, even if I thrive on such stimulating clashes), but, given the sheer numbers of so-called ‘Marxists’ that I’ve debated with, I’d expect at least some to be able to get through the combativeness, to the ‘meat’ of these issues facing any democratic workers’ organisations aiming to build for Communism. But this problem goes deeper than me simply being an argumentative bastard.I’m inclined to conclude that Marx is going to remain a mystery, because the interests and purposes of a revolutionary, democratic workers’ movement have never yet been at the heart of any attempt to explain Marx’s ideas to workers. And I’m yet to read any work that does this – not from any individual academic, nor from any organisation supposedly ‘Marxist’. Not least of the problems is ‘materialism’ and its anti-democratic faith in ‘matter’ (such a comfort to ‘individuals’ and their personal touch), which seems to infect all the organisations that I’ve mentioned.But, so far, Jordan’s book has been one the better efforts to untangle and explain Marx’s views, and I’d again recommend it, to those who can sympathise with some of the critical problems that I’ve constantly identified, although not solved.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Well, refutability comes via Popper.Deductive logic was largely refined by the Greeks.These are methods that are available to everyone, not to elites, that's the joy of them, so there's one of your claims falsified.

So, you're claiming that Popper and the Ancient Greeks argued that 'logic' and 'method' are subject to democratic accountability (ie. 'available to everyone')?Anyone who reads up on this will find that your claim is untrue: Popper wouldn't have workers telling him what 'truth' was, and the Ancient Greeks would not have their slaves doing so, either.Perhaps by 'everyone', you mean as 'individuals', one at a time, as 'specialists' – this is clearly bourgeois ideology.My ideology claims that 'logic' and 'method' and are social products, which change over time and place, as so 'logic' and method' are socio-historical creations by various societies.My ideology defines 'available to everyone' as 'available to the social group containing everyone in it' (and thus open to 'democracy'). Yours does not (and thus is not open to 'democracy'), and insists on 'elite geniuses' who cannot be outvoted.

YMS wrote:

The problem is, we disagree on what the word ideology means.

No, our ideologies disagree on what the word ideology means – you always reduce every discussion to 'individual'.But then… that's your ideology speaking, eh?

[Author]

Posts