[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

LBird wrote:

LBird wrote:

The real question, twc, is what 'material relations' actually means.Is the text referring to social relations or to 'material' (read as 'matter', 'stuff we can touch', something not to do with society, rocks, etc.).If it's 'social', then 'material' includes consciousness.If it's 'matter/rocks', then 'material' does not include consciousness.

So, no answer, as usual, from the members of the SPGB.

It is the same discussion of the Evangelical, of what is literal, and what is figurative, for some idealists  evangelicals, ( similar to the ones we have in this forum )   what is literal is figurative, and what is figurative is literal.Let"s  stop discussing  about the Bible, and concentrate our time on socialism. that is the main purpose of this forum, and that is what newcomers are looking for when they become a member of this forumIf we follow this discussion, as some idealists want to present it,  we can say that religion had an idealist origin,  instead of a materialist origin, therefore, preachers, religion historians, metaphysical,  and biblical commentators are totally correct.The needs of the workers at the present are materialist, and they are: Unemployment, Housing, Homeless, Wars, medical needs, diseases,  and Psychological problems have a materialist origin.

[my bold]All I'm asking, mcolome1, is does 'materialist' mean 'social'?Why can't you, or anyone in the SPGB, answer that question?When Marx says 'material', does he mean 'social', or does he mean 'matter'?

[LBird]

LBird wrote:

The real question, twc, is what 'material relations' actually means.Is the text referring to social relations or to 'material' (read as 'matter', 'stuff we can touch', something not to do with society, rocks, etc.).If it's 'social', then 'material' includes consciousness.If it's 'matter/rocks', then 'material' does not include consciousness.

So, no answer, as usual, from the members of the SPGB.

[LBird]

The real question, twc, is what 'material relations' actually means.Is the text referring to social relations or to 'material' (read as 'matter', 'stuff we can touch', something not to do with society, rocks, etc.).If it's 'social', then 'material' includes consciousness.If it's 'matter/rocks', then 'material' does not include consciousness.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

As i never weary saying, it is now time that we have a whole re-evaluation of how the party practices its principles in the light of our declining numbers and influence. 

I think that the problems go far deeper, alan.It's not simply a case of 'practices' which need 'a whole re-evaluation'.To me, the underlying problem is the party's 'principles'.I don't mean the written document, but the hidden, underlying, unspoken, perhaps even unconscious, 'principles' which form the worldview(s?) of the membership.I'm still not sure, after more than 3 years of engagement, whether the party is a 'Marxist' party (in either a 19th century Engelsist sense, or a Marxist one), whether the party is committed to "workers' power", whether the party puts 'democracy' ahead of 'individual freedom' – in short, whether the party's idea of 'socialism' is that of Marx, power in the hands of the direct producers, and no elite above the masses.Again, to me, a 'shorthand' test of these issues, is to ask any supposed 'socialist party' the question: "Who controls the production of 'truth'?"The simple answer for a 'socialist party' (in the sense I understand that term) is 'the democratic producers'. That's the basic 'principle' to build for 'socialism'.Any other answer – god, cadre, matter, 'reality', 'me as an individual', Stephen Hawking, etc., etc., shows me that that party is not 'socialist'.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

… you start to cry like a little child.

More wonderful political analysis from the SPGB.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Well, I did float an idea in the discussion of Brexit: the working class aren't propertyless.  They own two related things: citizenship, and the vote.  this gives them an interest in the state (and makes them effectively rentiers, or intellectual property holders), and they vote accordingly.As such this knocks out the idea that the working class is the negation of existing society, since they have a considerable stake, at least, those that are citizens, that is. 

This argument of YMS's rests on the assumption that 'citizenship and a vote' are simply more important to workers than, say, affordable housing, unadulterated food, critical education, etc.On the other hand, it could be argued that once 'affordable housing, unadulterated food, critical education, etc.' become rarer, that the changing socio-economic basis of the 'property ownership' of 'citizenship and voting' will remove their supposed 'interest' in those political benefits.I'd suggest that the latter argument, that 'citizenship and voting' aren't the key interests for workers, and that YMS is wrong, is the Marxist approach.Once workers realise, with the help of socialists, that 'citizenship and voting' can't ensure that they have decent housing, etc., then they will become more critical of YMS's thesis of 'the propertied proletariat', a direct contradiction of Marx's socio-historical views.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Yes, Marx might be wrong.

'Might'? Are you some sort of idolater, YMS?Of course Marx was wrong, at times.That's not what's at issue, though, here.What's at issue is that the argument that you're making on this thread is nothing to do with Marx.Once you are clear about that, we can discuss whether you are right and Marx is wrong, or vice versa.It's better than pretending that in some way that you're following Marx.Why not just say that you're not a Marxist?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Well, Lbird, no, Marx' idea was that the working class having no stake in the status quo had no option but to overthrow it, if, though a considerable proportion do have a stake, that changes things, they will support the state and reactionary politics, and they will divide against those who do not have the same interest: foreign workers.

As I said, what you're suggesting is arguable, but it's not what Marx was arguing.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

… the working class aren't propertyless.  They own two related things: citizenship, and the vote… As such this knocks out the idea that the working class is the negation of existing society, since they have a considerable stake, at least, those that are citizens, that is. 

[my bold]This is an arguable notion, YMS, but it's nothing whatsoever to do with Marx's ideas.If you disagree with Marx, that's fine, but you should state that openly.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Well yes. The means of production and communication have already been developed to an extent to allow for socialism, all that is now needed is the conscious effort to organise for it. He's not disagreeing.

DJP, I think what is at issue is precisely what you're assuming.That is, the definition of whatever is supposedly 'already developed'.If 'means of production' does not include 'ideas', then it can be argued that they have been 'already developed'.If 'means of production' does include 'ideas', then it can be argued that they have not been 'already developed'.'Materialists', who remove 'social theory and practice' from the creation of 'matter', argue the first.Marxists, who include 'social theory and practice' in the creation of 'matter', argue the second.I agree with Marx, that the 'means of production' are a social product, produced by humans, employing social theory and practice, and so the 'means of production' have not already been developed.That is, the 'means of production' include class consciousness.Only when workers have built their 'means of production' will it be possible to construct socialism.The definition of 'means of production' to mean 'the hard stuff out there' (buildings, roads, factories, offices, etc, what we can 'touch') is an ideological claim by 'materialists', which removes workers' self-activity from the building of their 'means of production', and places this task into the hands of an elite minority (even the hands of the 'unwitting' bourgeoisie).Walsby, like all 'materialists', is disagreeing with workers' conscious self-activity.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

rodmanlewis wrote:

Is there something wrong with our theory of society which fails to explain why more [workers] don't cotton on?

The Labour Party under Corbyn have claimed to have become the party with the largest membership in the whole of Western Europe so there must be something wrong with our theory of society.This is discussed herehttp://paulocanning.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/labour-isnt-europes-biggest-party.html

Harold Walsby wrote:

ask why, in view of the fact that "every prerequisite is already in the hands of society", the working class is not already Socialist, or even interested in Socialism

Harold Walsby wrote:

are those many hundreds of thousands of workers who, over the past half-century, HAVE heard the Socialist case and HAVE rejected it, are they by and large in any way fundamentally different from those millions of workers all over the world who have not yet heard the case?

jondwhite's question can be summed up as:"We 'materialists' have been talking shite to workers for 150 years, and the workers haven't been taken in by it".Of course, the 'materialists' think that they've been talking about 'socialism' (just as the Leninists do), but all workers' experience when joining these 'materialist' parties is to be told that 'material' determines, rather than the workers themselves determine, and so they conclude that it won't be them 'building' this 'socialism', but some elite experts, who just happen to 'know matter', and so the workers leave the 'materialist' party.I 'know' this, because I've been through it, as has every worker that I've met in 30 years who's been a member of a 'materialist' party. Out of dozens of close aquaintances, none have remained members for more than a few years.And afterwards, we all agree – 'materialism' (the rule of an elite) is complete bollocks, and only a workers' organisation that is based upon workers' democracy can build a 'socialism' of the sort meant by us workers.

[LBird]

gnome wrote:

K.Marx in The German Ideology wrote:

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.

[my bold]Marx here is saying:

Quote:

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which has the means of social production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the expression of the dominant social relationships, the dominant social relationships grasped as ideas.

When Marx writes 'material', he's contrasting it with 'ideal', that is, contrasting 'human' with 'divine'.Marx is talking about human, social, production, not 'matter'. That was Engels' misunderstanding of Marx.In effect, Marx simply means that the social theory and practice of production dominates the social theory and practice of politics.How we create our world dominates how we see that world.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Harold Walsby wrote:

ask why, in view of the fact that "every prerequisite is already in the hands of society", the working class is not already Socialist, or even interested in Socialism

Walsby erroneously employs a 'materialist' ideology, which contains the assumption that 'every prerequisite' that counts is 'material'.In fact, from Marx's perspective 'every prerequisite' is not 'already in the hands of society'. Walsby's 'facts' are not ours.The 'prerequisite' of 'class consciousness' is not 'already in the hands of society'.'Class consciousness' is an objective factor. 'Materialists' deny that 'ideas' are objective prerequisites of a socialist revolution, and simply pretend that 'consciousness' emerges from 'material' (ie., their notion of 'objective') 'conditions'.A class conscious proletariat is an objective prerequisite of a socialist revolution.There are of course subjective factors, like policies, forms of organisation, strategies, tactics, ideological beliefs, ethics, etc., which, if constructed wrongly, may lead to class defeat, even if there is widespread, majority class consciousness.Nothing is pre-ordained, but must be created and built, by ideas and activity, by Marx's method of social theory and practice.Walsby, like all 'materialists', deny the activity of the masses, and instead look to an expert minority, like Leninism does, who have a special consciousness which they argue that the masses can't have – otherwise, the 'materialists' would agree to the 'material' being our creation, which can be changed, as Marx argued.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

The New Yorker has a long article on Marx that is an interesting read with some things said that could be an interesting debate.http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/karl-marx-yesterday-and-today

article wrote:

This was the essence of Marx’s Hegelianism. Hegel argued that history was the progress of humanity toward true freedom, by which he meant self-mastery and self-understanding, seeing the world without illusions—illusions that we ourselves have created. The Young Hegelians’ controversial example of this was the Christian God. (This is what Feuerbach wrote about.) We created God, and then pretended that God created us. We hypostatized our own concept and turned it into something “out there” whose commandments (which we made up) we struggle to understand and obey. We are supplicants to our own fiction.

[my bold]We are supplicants to our own fiction, 'matter', according to the Religious Materialists. It is simply 'something out there', which we must simply 'obey'. 'Matter' is our 'illusion', our 'god'.We can change it.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

This is incomprehensible, YMS.You call this your 'scientific method'?And you're still bangin' on about "I", rather than social production.No wonder you won't have workers' democracy, but argue for elites, like you, who 'know' (but not 'difference') what the rest of us apparently can't.

No it isn't.No I don't.I am socially produced.No I don't.

And this is the SPGB dealing with epistemology, and the politics of 'science'?Hmmmm…. curiouser and curiouser… as Alice said. I've heard of a politics without a party, but never a party without a politics.

[Author]

Posts