[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I don't suppose you could assay a brief rebuttal?

Two points, YMS:1. I've done this many times over dozens of threads, so you could re-read some or all of them.2. I don't trust you, since my many previous attempts to get you to discuss these philosophical issues have always ended with some childish and ignorant remarks from you, so you're not someone for whom I would spend any further time on 'rebuttal', brief or otherwise.You're going to have to read some of the many books and articles that I've recommended in the past. I used to give long quotes from Marx, Engels, Dietzgen, Korsch, Lukacs, Hook, etc., etc., but I've since realised that doing so is pointless when arguing with Religious Materialists, who are like Creationists confronted with arguments about fossils – Materialists and Creationists have their respective gods: Matter and Him. God created in October 4004 BC, and Matter created 5 billion years earlier.Any talk of human self-creation of their world, of the social producion of our reality, of Marx and democracy, is met by outright dismissal.You're going to have to build your own rebuttal, YMS.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Now, we cannot know if Marx had any reservations about the text of that pamphlet, but we do know that there does not exist any public or private record of criticism, and willingness to add an introduction can legitimately be seen as an endorsement of sorts of the contents of that pamphlet.

This has formed part of the discussion for decades now, YMS.It'd do you good to read up on it.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

So are analyses critical of Engels by McLellan, Farr, Levine and Carver 'all the same' and at their core defenses of the Soviet Union? Would you recommend reading them? What about the academics from various tendencies defending Engels?

No, these critical analyses are not 'defenses of the Soviet Union'.And on the whole, in contrast to your characterisation, I wouldn't call them the 'Anti-Engels brigade', either.I think that it's more accurate to call them the 'Pro-Marx brigade', since they set out to show the differences between Marx and Engels with respect to their philosophy, and to argue in favour of Marx rather than Engels. Along those lines, they tend to argue that the 'Marxism' that most people are familiar with ('materialism' meaning 'matter-in-motion', base determining superstructure, economics as the 'final analysis', etc.) is a construct of Engels. This 'Marxism' includes all those since Engels wrote, including the Second International, the French 'Marxists' that Marx laughed at, Kautsky, Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, etc. Since this originated prior to 1904 (not just 1917), then the SPGB, too, seems to be enmeshed in this ideological swamp of 'materialism'.I would recommend reading them. If you want specific books, please ask.As for the 'academics' defending Engels, some are reactionary thinkers who wish to keep the unity of 'Marx-Engels', because then 'Marx' is so much easier to criticise politically when he is 'read' through Engels' work, some are 'anti-SU Leninists/Trotskyists' and 'pro-SU Stalinists' who both wish to maintain The Faith of The Party, and some are just as thick as pigshit. Have you met many 'academics'?As an aside, it's very interesting to read Bogdanov, because much of what he wrote is far closer to Marx than what Lenin wrote, because Lenin followed Engels' 'materialism'. Again, I can give details if you wish to follow up this issue.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

 But then, like robbo, you're not a democrat, but an individualist (and thus, an elitist), and so you can continue to spout mysterious phrases, which are meaningless, and so keep the workers in their place.

 Don't tempt me into a response LBird or you will once again get slaughtered for the silly tosh you constantly peddle.  Once more for your benefit – I support the concept  of  democratic control of the means of production; I do not support the patently ridiculous idea of the world's population democratically  voting to determine whether some arcane scientific theory is true or not. Have you got that or do I still need to explain to you the difference between these two things…

You really need to read what I write, robbo, and move on from your imaginary struggle with an issue of your own making.As for reality, you clearly keep stating that you will not have the producers determining the truth or falsity of what they produce by democratic means.Thus, you are an elitist. Just like the bourgeoisie, whose ideology you espouse.Now, leave the thread to those who wish to discuss jdw's link.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Lbird,I'm afraid you have never demonstrated why the existence of an objective reality leads to minority domination of society, which is significant if you call for us to assess Engels in the light of this claim.

I have done so, time and time again.But you won't read what I write.Marx claims we create our 'objective reality'.If we do so, we can change our objective reality.'Materialists' claim 'objective reality' already exists prior to our social production of it.If this is correct, we can't change this external 'objective reality'.If one agrees with Marx (and I do), then someone creates our objective reality.But, if it's not the majority (which means that the act of creation would be subject to a democratic vote), then it must be a minority which is the 'someone who creates', and thus this gives power to that minority.You don't have to agree with Marx and I, YMS, but if you don't, you should openly state just what ideology you do follow on these issues.The claim for 'objective reality' as 'external nature', as 'out there', as 'outside of human production', is a bourgeois ideological claim, which underpins elite rule.Marx challenged this ideological belief, but Engels never understood this, because he didn't understand the philosophical and epistemological issues which were involved.There, YMS, yet again, I've explained, in detail.But you'll ignore what I write, as usual.

[LBird]

Isn't it possible, just for once, for a thread to be developed by those actually interested in discussing the link that was provided in the OP?jdw seems to share my interest in this issue about the problems of the supposed unity of 'Marx-Engels', and the associated issues of 'materialism' and 'Western Marxism', so why can't the thread be left to us (and any others genuinely interested in reading and discussing about these problems)?Just for once.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

You might as well be saying 'what is piffle is poffle, and what is poffle is piffle', for all the understanding you have of the political issues at stake for the democratic producers.But then, like robbo, you're not a democrat, but an individualist (and thus, an elitist), and so you can continue to spout mysterious phrases, which are meaningless, and so keep the workers in their place.

Let's just all note that once again you fail to defend your major premise, and move on.

I've defended every premise that I (and Marx) have made.The problem is that you don't understand anything about this debate, political, philosophical, mathematical or scientific.So, move on in ignorance, YMS, as you usually do, and continue to spout about 'piffle-poffle'.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

I think the point is the Anti-Engels brigade includes David McLellan, Terrell Carver and 'the Western academic left, and which was closely connected to the rise of “Western Marxism”' dating back at least as far as 1974. Western Marxism being a category the SPGB are sometimes lumped into.

I know perfectly well what 'the point' is, jdw.'Western Marxists' are a bunch of academics, who don't know their 'material' arse from their 'ideal' elbow.If anyone here actually bothered to read some of the 'Anti-Engels brigade', including Carver, Thomas, Levine, Farr, they might actaully be able to engage in a discussion, which would include criticisms of their inability to understand Marx's 'social productionism'.It's not too far wide of the mark to characterise 'Eastern Marxism' (Lenin, etc.) and 'Western Marxism' (Lukacs, Frankfurt school, etc.) as the tweedledee-tweedledum of anti-democratic, anti-proletarian, anti-Marxist bourgeois elite theory and practice.Why the hell the SPGB lines up with either, beats me. One lot call the other 'idealist', whilst the other lot call the other 'materialist'. In fact, neither understand Marx's 'idealism-materialism' (democratic theory and practice by the social producers).

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

But at least you've proved Pavlov right. Just mention the word "Engels" and our feathered friend swoops down.

And snatches up the poor, intellectually defenceless 'material' ALB-worm.Grow up, and argue the political and philosophical issues being outlined, or keep your ignorant personal attacks to yourself.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

If we start, like the 'materialists', from 'matter', it will inexorably lead to a minority (who claim to have a special consciousness) determining what 'matter says', to the exclusion of the views of the majority.

You've neversubstantiated this claim.  It doesn't follow.Oh, and what is actual is rational, and wht is rational is actual.

You might as well be saying 'what is piffle is poffle, and what is poffle is piffle', for all the understanding you have of the political issues at stake for the democratic producers.But then, like robbo, you're not a democrat, but an individualist (and thus, an elitist), and so you can continue to spout mysterious phrases, which are meaningless, and so keep the workers in their place.

[LBird]

J B Foster wrote:

For Engels, as for Marx, the key to socialism was the rational regulation of the metabolism of humanity and nature, in such a way as to promote the fullest possible human potential, while safeguarding the needs of future generations.

[my bold]The key political question for socialists is: "who (or what) determines 'rational'?".Either 'matter' determines (and a minority will 'read matter'), or 'humans' determine (and only a majority can say what 'humans' determine).This is an issue of 'power'.If we start, like the 'materialists', from 'matter', it will inexorably lead to a minority (who claim to have a special consciousness) determining what 'matter says', to the exclusion of the views of the majority.The SPGB follows this anti-democratic theory of 'materialism', and argues that 'specialists' (a minority of elite experts) must determine, whilst the 'generalists' (the majority of 'non-specialists') must obey the 'specialists'.'Materialism' is at base a bourgeois, anti-democratic philosophy suited to elite rule, which is why Lenin espoused 'materialism' for his elite political purposes.Marx, on the contrary, was concerned with 'social production', and the political rule of the majority of the 'social producers'.Only the social producers can determine what is 'rational' for their own interests and purposes. 'Rationality' is a social product, not an external, unchanging, ahistoric gift from god.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Published online on 28 Nov in Jacobin, an article by John Bellamy Foster marking Engels birthday and addressing the movement to disassociate him from Marxhttps://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/engels-marx-ecology-climate-crisis-materialism/

I've addressed these issues in great depth already, on many threads here.Foster, like the rest, continues to make the mistake of seeing Marx as a 'materialist'.And they interpret this 'material' to mean 'matter' (as opposed to 'ideas' or 'non-matter stuff').Marx was an 'idealist-materialist', who argued for democratic social production by democratic social theory and practice.Thinkers like Foster, Burkett, Stanley, Lukacs et al place 'matter' above 'democracy'.For 'materialists', like Engels, 'matter' determines ('external nature' determines). Thus, we can't change. Power does not reside with a majority vote. Thus, only a minority must decide.For 'idealist-materialists', like Marx, 'democracy' determines ('human production' determines). Thus, we can change. Power does reside with a majority vote. Thus, only the majority must decide.I recommend that any comrades who read jdw's link bear these political considerations in mind.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

 You dont need to consult society as a whole by means of a vote. All you need to do  is consult your fellow producer next door. "Oi Fred, could you tell me what is the truth about String Theory, Does it hold water or is it a load of bollocks?" Fred being a producer will then give you a spot on answerBut what happens if Samantha down the road, who is also a producer, disagrees with Fred?  They cant both be telling the truth can they? See, this is what is so wacky abouy your whole argument.  You say only the producers can tell the truth. So why are they voting then?To vote implies the possibility of diasgreeement which you rule out by saying only the workers can tell the truth of what they produce.  But clearly this is nonsense since what is true for Fred is not true for Samantha … My position is that the truth is a relative thing and will differ from one person to the next. …

As I keep telling you, robbo, you're an 'individualist', and so you see 'society' as a collection of 'individuals' (Fred next door, Samantha down the road, one person and the next), and so, naturally for your ideology, you interpret 'production' to be something done by 'individuals'.But I'm a Communist and Marxist, and so I look to social groups when discussing 'production', and the interests and purposes of those social groups when they engage in their 'social theory and practice'.So, for 'individualists', 'production' is 'individual production', whereas for 'Communists', 'production' is 'social production'.These opposed ideological bases of ours lead us to differing conceptions of the nature of production, and how it is controlled. And this further leads to issues about whether 'power' is 'individual', 'elite' or 'social'.Socialists are concerned about social power and who wields it, and a subset of this is the social production of 'science'. Because 'science' is powerful, its control is of great concern to those who wish to build for a social revolution against the ruling class, who employ their 'science' to keep power out of the hands of the masses, and who build a socio-natural world of an elite making.Since you don't recognise these categories and political issues, because the world is made of 'individuals' for you, then these concerns are essentially meaningless to you (and, in fact, are seen as a 'danger' to the elite individuals who do science, in your ideological world).To you, 'democracy in truth production' is dangerous, whereas to democrats, it is essential.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

So tell me L Bird, in the "communist society" you propose, we have a world wide vote on a scientific theory. For arguments sake let's take the theory of what causes thunder.The vote are cast and the "truth" is decided along the lines of discharge of electrons between clouds, etc. However I'm still of the opinion that it's caused by a big guy in the sky with a hammer called Thor.What happens to me? Am I carted off to a idealist-materialist reeducation camp to ensure I acknowledge "the truth". Also how long do I have to wait before we can have another vote?

Tim, stay out of it – I can't take your inability to discuss sensibly. I'll only end up getting banned, because I'll talk to you like one talks to a dimwit, and I shouldn't treat you like that, so I won't reply to your stupidities any further.If you don't like it, complain to the mods.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

And please dont confuse demcratic control of production with democratic control of "truth"

Well, since I regard 'production' and 'truth' (we socially create both, by theory and practice) as 'social products', and I'm not 'confused' by my open ideological stance in science, you'll have to tell me where you disagree with Marx, and why you regard 'truth' as an elite product.I suspect that your faith in 'materialism' is going to come into play in your explanation.You should speak to YMS first, though, and get your 'individualist biological sense' explanations in sync. Of course, you'll both deny that you're (like we all are) 'ideologists', and simply defer (perhaps unconsciously) to bourgeois ideologists.

 OK so can you now explain why do you want the global population to vote on the" truth"  of scientific theories.  What is the point of the exercise? 

I keep telling you this, robbo, but you keep ignoring what I write.The 'point of the exercise' is that only the producers can tell the 'truth' of what they produce. And the only way within a society, like socialism, that produces democratically, is to vote.I also explained why you don't agree with Marx's views (which I do agree with) about 'social production' and the 'self-determination' of the producers, is that you are not a 'democratic socialist' concerned with 'social production', but you are an 'individualist' concerned with 'material' biological sensation.You believe that 'Truth' simply 'exists' somewhere 'out there', and this can be passively 'discovered' by 'disinterested' bourgeois scientists, who have a 'politically-neutral method', which is only available to an 'expert elite with a special consciousness', but not available to the masses.So, you believe that 'elites' produce 'Truth' (which doesn't change, or it wouldn't be 'Truth'), and I believe that 'societies' produce 'truths' (which are created socio-historically, and so do change).To you, if Hawking tells us his physics is 'True', you reply 'it must be the truth, a scientist says so', according to their 'disinterest' and absence of political purpose.To me, if Hawking tells us his physics is 'True', we ask him to explain how he came to this conclusion without us deciding how to go about producing this 'truth' according to our interests and purposes, and who gave him his 'concepts'….I've said all this before, robbo, but you won't engage with the ideological, political and historical aspects of 'science', and simply repeat your bourgeois-inspired outrage that "Workers can't tell Stephen Hawking what to do in physics! He's a genius, who does 'maths', and you workers are all unable to comprehend your world! Leave it to your 'specialist' betters!"The simplest way of putting our ideological disagreement is that you don't believe in 'democratic science', whereas I do. But then, I'm a Democratic Communist, and you're not.There is no 'objective answer' to this issue, robbo, It's a political battle, about 'power within social production', and 'who will wield it within socialism'.

[Author]

Posts