[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

I am planning to answer to your repetitive argumentation.

I'm glad we're going to get an answer – that's what debate is supposed to be about.As for my 'repetitive argumentation', that's only a response to your 'repetitive religiosity' regarding 'matter'. Repetitive claims of the need for 'faith' must be argued against.

mcolome1 wrote:

The only thing that I want to say is that  what you have written it is not the main topic of the pamphlet that has been published in this forum. The pamphlet covers the true origin of religion, and its development thru history, and what is the aptitude of the socialists toward religion. Your definition of religion shows that you have not read the pamphlet of the SPGB, or you do not know what religion is. The expression of Marx regarding religion on his time as the 'opium of  the people'  do not apply to our time either because religion do not have the same influence that it had during the XVIII century . You are the one making a religion of Marx 

Unfortunately, it's precisely your 'definitions' that are at issue. It's no proper response to criticisms of your 'materialist' claim for the need for 'faith in Matter' to say that we can't discuss this.There will be no need for 'faith in Matter' in a socialist society which is controlled by the democratic producers. Only the democratic producers can determine for themselves what they produce.'Materialists' make the anti-democratic claim that only the minority of 'materialists' can determine 'matter', and it is apparent that the SPGB also makes this claim – and this is a religious claim, which will end in priestly rule, just like it did with Lenin.This, of course, has been the response of many socialists since the 19th century about the dangers of 'materialism' – it's not a novel claim by me. The Stalinists even reinstated the Orthodox church.As for me 'making a religion of Marx', anyone who's read my posts for the last three years will know that I'm very critical of Marx – I think that he's a terrible writer (even Engels didn't understand much of what Marx wrote – and we're not talking about 'handwriting', but 'explanation'), and that he sometimes undermined his own stated ideas (Engels did the same, but much more often), by saying the very opposite to his key claims.In fact, I think that only a comprehensive re-assessment of Marx's ideas in the 21st century by the emerging class conscious proletariat, can solve many of our problems with Marx. We need to read, discuss, discard, re-formulate, re-iterate, and create new ways of understanding the core of what Marx was trying (very poorly) to say about democratic social production and the building towards socialism/communism.Marx's ideas have to be made understandable to any worker – and that task is the job of socialists.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

The materia-bot is clearly more sophisticated than the SPGB-bot.

Isn't any bot more sophisticated than the SPGB-bot?

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

While a bit repetitive, that would at least pass the Turing test.

But, alas, it won't pass your 'Materialism test'!

[LBird]

I know that you won't like my participation in this thread, mcolome1, but here's my ten pence worth, anyway.Whilst the SPGB regards itself as 'materialist', it is adhering to what amounts to a religion. That's why I often characterise your beliefs as 'Religious Materialism'.As many thinkers over the years have pointed out, 'materialists' simply replace the 'absolute' of the 'idealists' with their own 'absolute'. That is, the 'materialists' replace 'god' with 'matter'.Belief in 'Matter' requires a religious faith, in an 'absolute' that 'exists', has always 'existed', and will always 'exist'. The Religious Materialists become furious at those Communists who insist that 'matter' is a social product (just like Communists insist that 'god' is a social product).And since 'matter' is a social product, it's easy to show workers that the Religious Materialists are either lying to workers or are totally unaware of the political effects of an 'absolute' of any kind.An 'absolute' (since it doesn't really 'exist') necessarily requires an elite minority who insist to the majority that the 'absolute' does 'exist', but the majority do not have the required consciousness to 'know the absolute', and so an 'elite special consciousness' must determine the nature of the 'absolute', and this determination cannot be made by the majority (by a democratic vote).That is, the Religious Materialists politically insist that the majority do not have the right to vote 'matter' out of 'existence' and replace 'matter' with something more suited to the interests and purposes of the majority.Once this is understood by workers, they can soon realise why Kautsky and Lenin (for example) regarded themselves as 'materialists' – it's because their elite politics require an 'absolute' which provides the elite with a basis which is unable to be controlled or changed by the proletariat.Unless the SPGB confront this issue, they will continue to have faith in an 'absolute', and Democratic Communists will continue to point out this underlying elitism of the SPGB to workers who wish to know about how workers can, as Marx argued, change their world.'Absolutes', as the term suggests, cannot be changed.

[LBird]

gnome wrote:

…matter was created …

You might as well sing 'Faith of Our Fathers', too.It's clear to see what your ideology is, gnome, but why you won't declare it, openly, suggests you have something to hide.I'm a Democratic Communist, and influenced by Marx's notions of the social production of our reality, and so have a socio-historic approach to questions about 'creation' and, as always follows, the 'creator'.It would be very interesting just for once to have a discussion about the various ideologies about 'creation', but I know already that it's a waste of time suggesting this to Religious Materialists, who already 'Know Truth'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Lbird wrote:

1. I've done this many times over dozens of threads, so you could re-read some or all of them.

Not on the specific issue of Marx and Socialism Utopian and Scientific you haven't.  This is a thread specifically about Engels and Marx, and the frankly ludicrous attemopt to use Engls as some sort of Alibi for Saint Marx (not to mention the whole attempt at a Great Man theory of history which ignores the public aspects of the joint project between the two men and the whole mileu of that project).Noticeably, you have consistantly ignored the joint authorship of the German Ideology, and all it's content about materialism.Fart, willy, bum.

That's just about your level of scholarship, YMS.Try reading for once. Y'know, B I G  W O R D  B O O K S

[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.

[Author]

Posts