LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yeah, alan, replace ‘paper’ with ‘value’, and it’s spot on!
The key to understanding the issue is ‘social production’.
The ‘Dragons’ are all correct: at the end of the production process, they’ll all be richer, because that’s what the process is meant to do. The problem is that so many people believe that it will simply fail, because ‘reality’ will intervene.However, if one believes, as did Marx, that ‘reality’ is a socio-historical product, and we can change it, the answer is to collectively change it by democratic methods. Merely waiting for ‘reality itself’ to do our job will simply lead to richer ‘Dragons’.
As continues to happen. Joke over.
These things are socially produced, alan.
If one is a Marxist, although one can’t touch them, or indeed value, they can be explained, so that one is not ‘at a loss’ to understand them.
However, if one is a materialist, then anything whatsoever to do with consciousness will always remain a mystery.
And as social production requires both theory and practice, it too remains a mystery to materialists.
As an example of this ‘unifying’ aspect to Marx’s philosophical approach being followed by Dimmock, see p. 159, footnote 3:
“The study of conquest, battles and state and legal constitutions forms a separate discipline to social and economic history in most British academies. Bringing the two disciplines together has been one of the most interesting and hopefully fruitful aspects of my research since then.”
ZJW wrote “Regarding the Bird-recommended book by Spencer Dimmock from 2014, ‘The Origin of Capitalism in England, 1400–1600’, its detailed table of contents, on Google Books, can be seen here: shorturl.at/gqvCZ . This book (likewise downloadable from libgen) ought to be reviewed in the SS.
(Dimmock might be surprised at Bird’s characterisation of the Political Marxism current in Bird-comment #208026. Near the beginning of the chapter ‘Orthodox Marxism versus Political Marxism’, Dimmock writes:
‘As we shall see, the accusation of voluntarism – among other things – against Robert Brenner and Ellen Meiksins Wood (the Wood referred to in the above quote) stems from a total misreading of Brenner’s thesis and its application by Wood and other political Marxists such as George Comninel, Benno Teschke and Charles Post. Far from abandoning historical materialism, Brenner’s social-property
relations perspective has sought to bring it to life by rejecting the tendency to teleology and techno-determinism in earlier orthodox accounts.’”I think Dimmock’s book is very good introduction to the debates surrounding the ‘origins of capitalism’ between ‘orthodox Marxism’ (ie. the Engels-influenced “battle between ‘materialism’ and ‘idealism'”) and ‘political Marxism’ (ie. the Marx-influenced “unity of ‘materialism’ and ‘idealism’).
I don’t think Dimmock would be at all surprised at my ‘characterisation’. If anyone’s interested in my claim, have a read of Dimmock’s book, and get back to me here, with any questions.
Bijou Drains, alanjjohnstone, thanks for your kind words.
My advice is to read up about Chinese physics and politics, and try to see how they don’t separate ‘Nature’ and ‘Society’ (just as Marx didn’t), and to see how Engels was badly influenced by ‘Western Science’ (ie., what I’d call ‘bourgeois science’).
All ‘Science’ is socio-historical and so changes, and is powerful.
The question is: ‘Who is to control its power and how it changes?’.
The SPGB and TrueScotsman would agree (I think) about who should have power: an elite, who have an ability and motivation which not shared by the mass of humans.
Why the SPGB diverges from its democratic political beliefs when it comes to ‘science’ is a mystery that I’ve never been able to really solve.
I suspect it’s because you regard Marx and Engels (as do all Leninists) as in effect a ‘single being’, and regard the critical investigation of this belief as illegitimate.
Perhaps TrueScotsman can now say whether they align with the SPGB on this issue of ‘science’, or have I misjudged TrueScotsman’s politics? I would imagine that TrueScotsman regards the Party as the ‘Scientist’ within ‘Scientific Socialism’?
This has been a very interesting and enlightening debate, marred only by the inevitable personal insults by the SPGB against TrueScotsman. Plus ca change…
I should declare openly, though, to TrueScotsman, that my Democratic Communist politics are closer to those of the SPGB than to those of TrueScotsman.
There are two outstanding parallels between this thread and my many debates with the SPGB about ‘science’, which mirrors the “Leninist Elite versus Mass Class” basis of this one.
The first parallel, as I’ve already pointed out, is the SPGB’s mode of political debate – it doesn’t argue politics, but attacks individuals, and so loses the political debate, in the sense that its own ideological beliefs remain sacrosanct, but it doesn’t spread its own political message to workers who debate with them. It’s a method that will end in cult-like isolation.
The second, is that my arguments in defence of democratic science (the ideological belief that only mass control of physics, maths, logic, etc. is acceptable for a democratic socialist movement and its eventual product, socialism) are exactly the ones used by the SPGB to defend their politics.
That is why I agree with the SPGB as against TrueScotsman’s politics. I believe that only mass communist consciousness amongst workers across the planet can build socialism. TrueScotsman disagrees with this, and argues for a party to lead the still non-socialist workers into socialism – which is fair enough, and a political and ideological one, which I disagree with, but I can understand and debate with.
The problem is, the SPGB are contradictory, and on the issue of ‘science’, agree with TrueScotsman’s political and ideological position: that an elite is needed to lead the benighted mass.
My position, and I think it was Marx’s too, is that only the proletariat can liberate itself, in all areas of social production, which naturally (and I chose that term consciously) includes the power of human ‘science’.
‘Nature’ and ‘Society’ are human products, and within a democratic socialist society can only be changed democratically.
I think TrueScotsman would disagree that either should be democratically produced (but at least holds a consistent political position), whereas the SPGB thinks ‘Nature’ is simply sitting ‘out there’, waiting to be ‘discovered’ by an elite of physicists (and other ‘scientists’), and so ditches its correct democratic politics regarding ‘Society’ when dealing with ‘Nature’. It’s a confused political stance that must lead nowhere. At least TrueScotsman’s consistent beliefs have had, and continue to have (unfortunately from my perspective) political relevance today.
Anyway, I couldn’t resist posting, so my apologies to those who detest the notion of ‘Politicised Science’, and prefer a self-selecting elite to hold power in science.alanjjohnstone wrote: “All i can say, is that Marx in his lifetime actively joined in organisations which did not fully accord with all his ideas and expectations. We can only assume that he valued their contributions to the emancipation of the working class more than he did the philosophical views from his youth. It appears you take a very difference position from Marx.”
Again, as a materialist, you’re twisting the truth.
Marx never joined an organisation that argued against the self-emancipation of the proletariat – which is what ‘materialists’, as we’ve seen here, do. Marx’s philosophical notion of ‘self-change’ has been deemed wrong by both ALB and robbo.
Marx might have thought that the organisations that he did join were not ‘materialist’, but we’d probably disagree now, given later developments, and Marx’s own words about not being a ‘Marxist’.
And given his support for the supposedly ‘idealist’ ‘Narodniks’ in Russia at the end of his life, when he opposed the supposed ‘materialist’ ‘Marxists’, like Plekhanov (who made up the category of ‘Narodnik’ and damned his creation as ‘idealist’, in an echo of Engels’ great battle), we’ve good reason to think he wasn’t any sort of ‘materialist’, like you are.
Your ideological view of ‘Marx’ is not one I share, alan.
But, since you don’t consider your view to be ‘ideological’, we can’t even discuss the problem. To you, there is no problem.
Putting your heads in the sand is not a good political strategy. Nor is shooting the messenger.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “My questions were as you rightly quoted
“…can you suggest any political party, contemporary or historical, that has been more democratic than ourselves? Likewise, can you provide an example of a socialist party exemplifying socialism more than we do?”
Your answers did not address them, LBird.”
Right, alan, I’ll try again.
It seems that, as Marx suspected, the political ideology/movement/party known as ‘Marxism’ was nothing to do with his ideas. Again, as Marx pointed out, any ideology/movement/party rooted in the notions of ‘materialism’ would bolster class society.
So, if you are asking me if “any political party, contemporary or historical… has been more democratic than ourselves”, then I can only judge your question based upon Marx’s democratic social productionism.
The answer thus is, to the best of my knowledge (and I’m open to further enlightenment on the issue), there is not and never has been a ‘democratic’ party, ‘contemporary or historical’, that meets this political test.
So, the SPGB is not democratic, nor does it ‘exemplify socialism’. And it appears that all ‘contemporary and historical’ parties who’ve called themselves ‘socialist’ or ‘Marxist’ have really been ‘materialist’, and so have nothing to do with Marx’s democratic social productionism.
Of course, there have been thousands of individuals, over the years and across the world, who’ve pointed this out, that ‘socialism/communism’ must mean ‘democratic social production’ if it is to be worth building. But, again to the best of my knowledge, no party has emerged from these dissenters against ‘materialism’. I might be wrong on this, and would be pleased if you know differently and can point one out.
I must admit, my experience of the SPGB and its ‘materialist’ ideology (which is so obviously at odds with ‘democracy’) leaves me feeling as if I’m unlikely to find a ‘democratic socialist’ party in my lifetime. Youse were a bit of a ‘last chance saloon’. I actually think that there’s a danger that Marx’s ideas will be completely forgotten, because it seems that the ‘materialist’ parties, like the Trotskyists and the SPGB, are doomed in the 21st century because they base themselves on a completely discredited 18th century ideology, and there is no other ‘institutional’ memory of what Marx argued. I’d like to think that a party based upon Marx’s views would emerge, and I’d join, but I’m not hopeful.
I hope that this answers your question, now, alan.
robbo, you must try and read my answers. It’s pointless to keep asking the same question.
‘Objects’ are socially created. That’s the answer.
The fact that you disagree, and want ‘objects’ to be ‘independent of human conscious activity’, is an ideological position.
Deal with your ideology, and ask where it came from.
Hint: it didn’t come from you.
robbo, you haven’t read or understood Marx, so quit now, whilst your ignorance, and touching faith in the bourgeoisie, is still partially hidden.
robbo203 wrote: “Actually, Marx’s explanation was quite wrong…”
So, why bother with Marx and Capital?
Oh, sorry, you don’t.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “For the record, can you suggest any political party, contemporary or historical, that has been more democratic than ourselves? Likewise, can you provide an example of a socialist party exemplifying socialism more than we do?”
Is this the question you were referring to, alan?
1. You’re not a ‘democratic party’. Every time I ask by who (and how) is ‘truth’ created, you don’t answer ‘humanity’ by ‘democracy’. You favour the social production of ‘truth’ by an elite of ‘specialists’. Youse write this stuff, it’s not an allegation by me.
2. You’re not a ‘socialist party’. ‘Socialism’ can only be ‘democratic socialism’ (see 1.), and can only be produced by the self-emancipation of the proletariat, not by an ‘elite’ or by ‘biological individuals’. Socialism means all social production is democratic, including our science.
ALB wrote: “...Marx was of course wrong…”
ALB’s now quoting bourgeois encyclopaedias to prove Marx was wrong! LOL!
Sorry, a materialist is quoting objective sources, which were nothing to do with bourgeois social production.
alan, this is pretty sorry stuff, to be aligning yourself with – ALB the Leninist, who favours bourgeois thinking over Marx, and robbo, who’s got his own personal connection to the ‘object’.
Where’s the self-emancipation of the proletariat, amongst all this bourgeois ‘objective science’?
I’ll stick to quoting the Socialist Standard! You couldn’t make this up!
Yeah, ALB, ‘Generatio aequivoca’ means ‘self-emancipation’.
Every quote you make from Marx, or even the Socialist Standard, undermines your anti-democratic Leninist Materialism.
ALB wrote: “He too thinks the world has been created, only he calls the creator “Social Mind” rather than “God”.”
Don’t you feel ashamed of your Leninist-like lying about your opponent’s politics and philosophy?
Marx argued that active, conscious, humanity was the creator.
You can only read ‘social mind’ because you want, just like Lenin, to portray your opponent as an ‘idealist’.
robbo – try and read some philosophy, especially Marx’s.
alan, Wez, Matt – don’t you think that it’s odd that it’s me quoting the Socialist Standard, and you’re all arguing against it?
ALB, perhaps the best way to explain this to you is to say ‘mind’ is like ‘value’.
They are both social products, not made up of ‘matter’, not touchable by an individual, but involve social relationships, which we can change.
‘Value’ in not in a physical good, just like ‘mind’ is not in a brain.
‘Value’ will never be ‘found’ inside a ‘good’, just like ‘mind’ will never be ‘found’ in a brain. Only the bourgeoisie insist that ‘value/mind’ are ‘inside something tangible’.
If you can’t get to grips with this, you can’t understand Marx.
Mind is a social product, not inside a wet organ.
