[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

We have spent an exorbitant time in discussing these and various philosophical positons that keep getting returned to I have said previously that the debate is all rather hair-splitting and point-scoring.I would much rather you redirected your intellect to much more mundane issues, LBird, …

[my bold]That's the problem, alan.Elitist ideologies always regard 'democracy' as "all rather hair-splitting and point-scoring", in their attempt to shift the focus away from difficult issues (difficult for them, of course) about 'who has power'.I'm sure you'd prefer I 'redirect my intellect to much more mundane issues', and leave the field clear for the 'materialist' ideology to keep telling workers that they can't control the production of ideas.I, too, in the SWP, used to accept that argument, that issues about 'power' are best left to the 'party', and that I should concern myself with 'much more mundane issues', like selling papers, recruiting more fodder, stewarding marches, paying subs, etc.The simple truth, alan, is that you can't see the vital importance of this political issue, and you're encouraged in your ignorance by the ideology that has a grasp on your mind.You'll deny this, of course, and simply argue, like Tim and linda, that you and they can 'touch matter', and that's the end of the issue.SPGB slogan? – 'Back to the mundane, workers! Nothing to see here! Trust us elitists! Use your own biological senses!'No, it's not for me, alan. I want workers active in the intellectual and critical areas of production, not just the mundane.

[LBird]

gnome wrote:

lindanesocialist wrote:

Workers are starving, unemployed, homeless and landless. Reach out to them, me, us. The idealists are the past, we have our material conditions and interests to deal with. Shelter, food, clothes etc etc. LBird is a troll and a time waster.If you are not arguing pointlessly with LBird, you are attacking and suspending members trying to connect with the real issues that concern the working classMake this a workers forum and we might move forward.

Head and nail come to mind…

[my bold]You have one?It's certainly not a critical one. Or active.But, that's your 'materialist' ideology in play, eh? Passive in the face of 'matter', to the end.If there are any 'trolls and time wasters' on this thread, it's those who deny Marx's 'active proletariat' creating their own world. But I wouldn't call youse 'trolls', just ignorant of anything whatsoever to do with Marx's theories. You are Engelsian Materialists, and you should be open about this, with any interested workers reading.But, you won't be. Elitists always hide their ideology from democratic workers.

[LBird]

robbo, Tim , linda… please read what I've written.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Im still waiting for LBird's answer. Why is he so coy about providing an answer?

You'll have to read my answer, robbo, as opposed to ignoring it, and substituting your own terms for Marx's.

[LBird]

Another consideration: Pannekoek argues that we create the so-called 'laws of nature'.Is Pannekoek correct, or do humans simply discover eternal 'laws of nature', that were 'out there' all the time, and we just contemplate them?Put in the epistemological terms that I discussed earlier, are 'laws of nature' 'objective', or are they a product of the subject-object relationship?Pannekoek seems to agree with Marx, that the 'socially objective' laws of nature are a socio-historical product, which we can therefore change.

[LBird]

lindanesocialist wrote:

Don't need any long words to answer my quetion.

No, but apparently you need continued repetition: it seems to be a party attribute, the inability to read what workers write, and the substitution of other terms.

Quote:

Do yo believe we created the world? 

Little words, linda, once again:Humans …create …their …world.This is Marx's argument, and I agree with him.If you don't agree with Marx's social production, you should say openly just who you agree with. I'll bet it's Engels and the 'materialists'.You're fishing in deep waters, linda, and I'm trying to help you. Just like I did Vin.

[LBird]

lindanesocialist wrote:

LBird wrote:

This is the heart of Marx's ideas: social production. We are the creator of our world. That's why we can change it.

So we created the Sun and the moon? Or did they exist before humans?

You're not very good at this epistemology lark, are you, linda?I've already explained what 'existence' is, so if you insist that the world we create 'existed' before we created it, you'll have to tell us how you know that, and who did create this 'existence'.I'd suggest that you 'know' this because someone has told you so (you're a social individual, as Marx says), and you'll have to argue that as humans are not the creator of their world (which goes against what Marx argued, about social production), then a god was the creator.It all fits with Religious Materialism, linda. Don't listen to them, if you want workers to build socialism. Otherwise, you'll hand power over to an elite. The elite who told you the story about Religious Materialism.

[LBird]

I suppose it saves time, mcolome1, if you just refuse to discuss the issues, and continue to misrepresent me.I've already told you that I'm not an adherent of Dunayevskaya, I think her views are very similar to Lenin's; so, it doesn't surprise me that you've been part of both movements, because they are very similar.Marx's so-called 'materialist conception of history' is nothing to do with 'matter'; by 'material', Marx meant 'human' or 'social', as opposed to 'ideal', relating to divine production.Yes, you are an 'amateur', but so is the entire SPGB, going by what's been written here, so you won't learn anything soon.The SPGB members here do base their epistemological views on 'individuals' and their 'biological senses': they keep saying so, it's not me accusing them of doing so.I've never blamed Engels for 'all the problems of socialism': I argued that he, like you, was an amateur, and had no idea whatsoever about epistemology.The rest of your post is just the usual evasion of the issues, combined with the usual personal abuse.Does it say something in the handbook 'The ideology of materialism', that you seem to have as your bible, that personal abuse of Marxists is the only way to deal with those who question your elitism?If you're 'wasting your time', then give posting a miss, and try reading the debates and forming an opinion about the social production of 'organic nature'. You've clearly got lots to learn.

[LBird]

Here's a philosophical question for everyone to ponder.If the subject-object relationship must always be maintained, how can 'interventionless nature' exist?Marx (just like the idealists with whom he agreed) maintains the relationship by arguing that the mediating factor between the two is activity. Marx used the term 'social labour' for this category.Thus, he argues that the subject (a social category, not an 'individual') creates its object, by its social activity upon 'inorganic nature'.But this 'inorganic nature' does not 'exist in itself', but only forms an input or ingredient into social labour, which changes it into a human product, our object, 'organic nature'. That is what 'exists-for-humans', what is 'reality-for-us'.The notion of contemplating 'inorganic nature' is meaningless, because, separated from its active side, it doesn't 'exist'. It only comes into existence-for-us as a labour-ingredient, and we immediately change it.This is the heart of Marx's ideas: social production. We are the creator of our world. That's why we can change it.Any other formulation leaves workers passive in the face of 'interventionless nature', at best; and at worst, under the control of a social elite, who do produce an 'organic nature' that is built to their purposes and interests, but hide this with their ideology of 'interventionless nature', the myth of 'Objective Reality' and 'Eternal Truth'.Humans build their world: subject creates its object.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

I am just so confused

Your're not the only one CP.

What's so confusing, SP, about YMS claim to know 'interventionless nature'?Either you agree with YMS that there is an 'interventionless nature', which you, too, 'know', or you agree with Marx that 'knowledge' is socially produced, ie. the 'nature we know' is a product of our 'intervention'.What's so difficult for any socialist to understand? 'Social labour' means 'intervention'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

 So, thanks to Lbird for point out a section of Marx which utterly disproves what he has been saying here for so long.

It will do, from the perspective of the 'materialists'.That's my point for CP.They need to decide, first, whether they align with 'idealism', 'materialism' or 'idealism-materialism'.You're a 'materialist', YMS. CP needs to decide whether to follow your ideology, or not.'Materialism' claims to 'know objective Truth', and so hides its own perspective.

YMS wrote:

Nature can only really mean 'that which happens without the interventiopn of Man'.

I don't, but then I agree with Marx about 'social production', and not the 'Objective Truth' of the 'materialists'.The 'intervention of humanity' can't be removed from the 'nature' that we produce.Because the 'materialists' can conceive of a 'nature without the intervention of man', they can conceive of removing 'democracy' from 'social production'.Lenin shared the same distaste for workers' democracy, and their creation of their world, their organic nature.You're simply an elitist, YMS, who claims to know this 'nature without human intervention', and you must therefore have a method which allows your elite to know, but which is not available to workers, otherwise you'd agree to a vote, on what this 'interventionless nature' is.

[LBird]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

I am just so confused

The first thing that you have to do, CP, is decide for yourself whether the two-fold or three-fold model makes most sense to you.That is, whether there are only two alternatives (just 'idealism' and 'materialism', as Engels argued), or whether there are three alternatives (the third being 'idealism-materialism', that Marx produced by a unifying of 'idealism' and 'materialism').Your choice on this issue will determine your further understanding about the wider issues of epistemology and democracy.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

L Bird is just like the Marxist-Humanists: Materialist-idealists philosopher, or an idealist.  Dunayeskaya wrote that Marx was one of the most materialist of the idealist philosophers, and one of most idealist of the materialist philosophers, based on that premise she said that Lenin was reading Hegel from a materialist-idealist point of view, an ambivalent philosopher: Materialist-idealist, Idealist-Materialist. I think that we have better issues to pay attention at the present time, this is just a wasting of time

[ my bold]On the contrary, mcolome1, this is a political issue of supreme importance.Lenin was a 'materialist', because 'materialism' provides an ideological basis for Leninist politics.It seems clear by what has been said by SPGB members and supporters on this thread, that 'materialism' denies power to the working class, and places power in the hands of an elite.Marx argued for workers' power in all politics, and he wasn't a 'materialist'.'Inorganic nature' is not 'matter'.'Materialists' will not address these epistemological questions, or assign any democratic control to scientific production, because they assert that 'matter' just 'is', 'out there', waiting to be contemplated, and 'matter' determines, not the producers.'Materialists' always fall back upon an 'individualist, biological' epistemology (of the 19th century bourgeoisie and liberalism) where an 'individual' can tell what 'matter' 'is' by touching. Tim earlier gave no social or historical account of 'matter', but just referred to his individual activity. Now Linda is doing similarly. Their questions are always based upon 'individual' scenarios. Marx claimed that 'senses' are socially-created, and so any account of 'matter' must be a socio-historical one (like I've given) which allows us to change it.While you look to 'materialism', mcolome1, you'll remain trapped in a form of Leninist politics.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

 For example, in response to Tim's question  " Do you believe that matter has an existence independent of your perception of it?", LBird confidently asserted that it does not. Now clearly this is nonsense. Presumably LBird accepts that before human beings evolved on this planet or indeed before life and living things appeared, there was matter. So in a formal sense obviously matter exists independently  of our perception of it.

'Matter' is obviously speaking directly to robbo, here.robbo clearly states that 'matter exists independently'.So, he clearly arguing, unlike Marx, that 'matter is not a social product'.So, where does robbo's ideology fit within the three-fold outline that I gave to CP earlier?Happily enough, robbo himself proceeds to tell us.

robbo203 wrote:

Positivism is the contention that rocks [ie. 'matter'] can speak to us directly,  that we can have a purely objective knowledge about them.  Despite LBird's claim to the contrary I don't see any evidence here of a positivistic view of science being promoted on this forum.  What I do see is claims to the effect that matter does indeed have an an existence independent of our perception of it.  But that is not positivism and LBird has muddied the water considerably by suggesting that it is

[my bold and insert]This claim for 'independent matter' is positivism (which is another name, CP, for 'entirely objective', number 1 in our list).robbo is confused about this, because he unconsciously holds to the ideology of 'materialism' (or, positivism, or, objectivism), and so can't bring himself to agree with Marx's ideas about 'social production' (number 3 in our list).Marx does not talk about 'matter' (that was Engels' insertion); Marx talks about 'material production'.'Material' does not mean 'matter'; for Marx 'material' meant social (as opposed to 'ideal', meaning divine). Marx talks of human labour upon 'inorganic nature' which produces 'organic nature' (ie, for some social groups, 'matter'). 'Inorganic nature' is not 'matter'. That was Engels' mistake, to call Marx's category of 'inorganic nature' as 'matter'.CP, you have to choose which ideology you wish to employ – 1, 2 or 3.robbo is choosing 1; Marx and I choose 3.

[LBird]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

There seems to be a major division in ideology.  correct me if I'm wrong. One side believes that truth(or science) is entirely objective and the other side believes that it is entirely subjective? 

Not quite, CP.There are three positions:1. 'Entirely objective' – this is 'materialism'; this argues that there is THE 'scientific method', a single way, usuable by individual geniuses or small elites, which gives an 'entirely objective' account of 'reality', as it simply 'is', 'out there'.2. 'Entirely subjective' – this is 'idealism'; this argues that each individual has their own 'scientific method', that 'anything goes', that every individual gives an 'entirely subjective' account of 'their own reality', as they simply see it, in their own heads.3. 'Subject produces object' – this is Marx's 'idealism-materialism'; this argues that each society with different types of production, produces its 'social reality'. For a democratic society like socialism, any social production must be democratically organised, and so no individuals or small groups (geniuses or not) can produce 'reality' on their own. 'Reality' is socially produced, and socialism's scientific method must reflect our building of our 'social reality'.Hope this helps.

[Author]

Posts