[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Anyway, how do you know these "facts" about zombies, I thought facts had to be established by the workers through a democratic process, when did the workers have a vote about zombies?

How else would 'facts' be established?I know that you won't answer this epistemological question, because that is at the heart of our disagreements. I'm a Democratic Communist who seeks to give a democratic political, philosophical and scientific basis to the social production of knowledge by class conscious workers. And you don't.

TK wrote:

As to the cod psychology, I have never psychoanalysed a fish, however I have had a few thoughts about the psychological profile of a certain feathered animal

Yeah, it's always the 'method' of the 'elite' who can't account to workers why workers can't politically control their production: to question the 'psychology' of dissidents who question the so-called 'scientific' basis of 'elite knowledge production' and 'expert control'.I'll leave you to your all too 'few thoughts'.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Good to see that satire's not dead

Good to see that zombie's not dead.

A zombie couldn't be, that's the bloody point. If it's dead it's not a zombie.

No, it's 'undead', so it's neither, that's the bloody point. Neither true nor false. Logic isn't your strong point, is it? Or psychology, of the non-cod variety.

TK wrote:

(p.s. you probably need to brush up on your witty retorts, Oscar Wilde, you ain't)

p.s. You definitely need to brush up on your insults, Vin Maratty, you ain't.

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Good to see that satire's not dead

Good to see that zombie's not dead.

[LBird]

lindanesocialist wrote:

Well you have been fairly treated, Lbird. so you think Vin's long term permanent ban is justified?

I don't want to see Vin banned.Personally, I just want Vin to discuss some issues from the point of view of informed debate, rather than him calling me names, and then me responding in the same childish manner.But, from the point of view of the mods, Vin's a party member, and I presume they expect more of him, than they do of me. They must think any ban is justified.It's your party, not mine. I think that the SPGB has got far larger problems than this issue.

[LBird]

lindanesocialist wrote:

It would be a refreshing change if forum members – other than moderators with there moderator hats removed – could come and defend the moderators decisions.

I would quite happily defend the moderators' decisions, for the most part.If anything, I think that the moderators are too lax in allowing personal abuse, which then has to be tackled by those who are the target of it.If I have any complaint, it's that the SPGB doesn't seem to have anyone capable of engaging in a philosophical and political debate, without resorting to personal abuse. But this isn't a problem with the moderators alone, but with most (all?) of those who participate in subjects about which they apparently know nothing, and aren't prepared to read up on and learn about.But the moderating? From my personal experience, they do fine, given a difficult job.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

I knew you would be interested in the article on NLR and Engels!

Well, I'm open-minded enough to keep following up any links, books, pamphlets, articles, etc., that are provided by comrades like you, in an attempt to either find the key to destroy what I'm arguing, or to strengthen what I've come to understand by Marx's ideas.Of course, it's open to anyone to accuse me of being biased to 'my' views, but I know myself well enough to know that I'll happily reject my previously-held beliefs if I can justify that action, having done so a number of times in my life.All I can say is that I'm yet to come across any arguments that undermine my view of what Marx was arguing – that workers create their own world, and that this creation must be democratically organised – so I continue to search, and thus strengthen my initally tentative ideas, which I've developed tremendously since I first posted here.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

On NLRhttps://louisproyect.org/2016/08/15/who-is-gareth-stedman-jones-and-why-is-he-saying-such-stupid-things-about-marx/

Thanks for that link, jdw.Neither Gareth Stedman Jones nor Louis Proyect seem to understand Marx.GSJ can go ignored, because I don't think anyone here will be giving him any space whatsoever. LP at comment 2 gives a link to a Weekly Worker article on "Humans, nature and dialectics", which is the usual Leninist guff.http://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1057/humans-nature-and-dialectics/These people never mention proletarians creating their world, which is the central argument by Marx.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

I was brought up a catholic, felt the guilt and confessed and felt pure. I rejected such nonsense at 14 year old.

I was brought up a catholic, too, Vin. And an Engelsist.But I have since rejected all those who insist that the 'creator' is not humanity.Whereas you, unfortunately, cling to 'Materialism', and its god 'Matter', which no worker shall challenge.

Vin wrote:

List of sins since my last confession1.       I have gone off topic more times than most but not all, see for example LBird (Venial Sin)

I think you severely underestimate the category of my 'sin', Vin.Denying the power, authority and finality of 'Matter' infuriates the 'Materialists', who can see this denial is a denial of their 'special consciousness' which workers cannot have, and so it undermines them in the eyes of democratic workers.As such, I'm committing Mortal Sin, according to the Religious Materialists who wish to adore and contemplate 'matter'.Watch me do it again, completely without contrition:'Only the democratic producers can determine by democratic means whether 'matter' exists for them'. Workers can vote 'matter' out of existence. 'Matter' is not a universal category, but a socio-historically produced category. And as such, we can change it.There we go!Destination 'Hell'!Hope to see you there, Vin, comrade.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

With the only one that you do not disagree is with yourself. Your arguments do sound iike a Marxist-Humanist

That's an unnecessary tone, mcolome1.I've treated you like a adult, and responded to your posts with reasoned arguments, and I expect you to do the same, and keep a comradely tone.Now, I've said that I'm not an adherent of Dunayevskaya, and I've said that I'm not a Leninist Materialist.You haven't. You've actually said that you are a 'materialist'.It's up to you to argue coherently why you are a 'materialist', when this is the basis of Leninism, but yet you reject Lenin.If you are unable to argue a point, then the blame lies with you, not with my arguing for Marx and workers' democracy, which you apparently dislike.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1958/dunayevskaya.htm

Mattick wrote:

What remains to be said is that the book has appendices consisting of fragmentary early writings of Marx on Private Property and Communism and the Hegelian Dialectic. They represent a stage of Marx’s intellectual development which he himself was glad to get behind him. And though they are of some interest, as is almost anything that Marx wrote, they do not enhance the understanding of either Marxism or capitalism.

[my bold]mcolome1, I also disagree fundamentally with Mattick on this issue about Marx's earlier works.Mattick seems to subscribe here to an 'epistemological break'.I think that I've shown with quotes from Marx's Capital that he always employed the same method of 'social theory and practice' throughout his works.There is no evidence that Marx 'was glad to get behind him' his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, and those works clearly do 'enhance the understanding' of all Marx's work.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1958/dunayevskaya.htm Probably, Paul Mattick describes much better  her amivalence 

Thanks for that, mcolome1.Mattick is also confused.He says "As practice leads to theory…", but also talks "unity of theory and practice".'Practice' does not 'lead to theory', according to Marx. The notion that 'practice leads to theory' is 'induction'. This is not Marx's method.Marx argues that 'theory' is required (purpose, planning), which is then put into 'practice'.Whether the resulting 'product' satisfies the producers, can only be determined by the producers themselves.The 'product' does not tell the producers that it is satisfactory to them. Something might 'work in practice', but still be determined by the producers to be 'untrue'.So, …not 'practice leads to theory' (leads to 'truth');not 'theory leads to practice' (leads to 'truth);but, 'theory leads to practice' (leads to 'vote' on 'truth').Only the latter is compatible with Marx's views about 'social theory and practice' which remains under the democratic control of the producers.Unless the 'scientific method' follows Marx's unified method (the unity of social theory and practice), then an elite will always have power over the producers.'Scientific knowledge' and 'truth' are social products, and thus we can change them. They are not 'Eternal Truths' produced by an elite which must henceforth be simply contemplated.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

Brian wrote:

Wez wrote:

I'm a latecomer to this debate, but is LBird suggesting that Marx was not a materialist? Surely it was his materialist perspective that rescued the dialectical method from Hegel's idealism?

Not quite.  He's suggesting that Marx evolved into an idealist-materialist or even a materialist-idealist.  Further he's also proposing we are Lenists because Engles failed to foresee the necessity for the democratic control of all theory.

Therefore,  he is in agreement with Raya Dunayeskaya who was a Marxist-Humanist. She said that Marx was one of the most idealist of the Materialist, philosopher,s and one of the most Materialist of the  idealist philosophers. She combined Materialism with Idealism. She was a Hegelian and a Leninist, and she rejected some of Engels conceptions

One can find the relevant quote from Dunayevskaya regarding Marx on page 42 of her Marxism and Freedom.But she makes excuses for Lenin on page 171, where she says that Lenin rejected his earlier 'vulgar materialism' of his Materialism and Empirio-criticism.I disagree with Dunayevskaya, so mcolome1 is incorrect to identify us as being 'in agreement'.

[LBird]

Wez wrote:

I'm a latecomer to this debate, but is LBird suggesting that Marx was not a materialist? Surely it was his materialist perspective that rescued the dialectical method from Hegel's idealism?

We've been discussing this issue for a few years now, Wez, so there's lots of things being said here which are taken for granted by the usual posters.In a nutshell, my view is that Marx was an 'idealist-materialist' (I only use that term to capture the two inputs into his ideas).We could just as easily call him a 'social productionist' or focus on his 'theory and practice'.All these terms try to capture the relationship between 'consciousness' and 'not-consciousness': that is, an active, productive, purposeful, planning, social consciousness and the 'stuff' that the conscious agent changes, to produce their 'product'.Engels didn't understand Marx, and broke apart Marx's synthesis (of 'ideal-material'), and reverted to 'materialism'.

[LBird]

rodmanlewis wrote:

The question is "Is the socialist/materialist case a valid one?" Whether you consider it an elitist position is up to you.

[my bold]The problem is, rodmanlewis, that 'socialist' (being democratic) and 'materialist' (being undemocratic) are opposed.Your phrase plays the same role as 'national socialism'; that is, to persuade workers that an expert elite shall dictate to those workers, all in the best interests of those benighted workers (of course, 'best' is determined by the elite, not the workers themselves, who are 'often self-imposedly ignorant').So, it's not my 'considerations' that matter, but what democratic workers would choose: 'democratic socialism' or 'socialist materialism'. What is the 'valid one' for workers building their world? This is not a 'personal choice' (bourgeois method, again, from the materialists), but a political question about class power.[heavy hint to any workers reading: 'socialist materialism' is the ideology of Leninism]

[LBird]

rodmanlewis wrote:

LBird wrote:

'Materialism' denies democracy. 'Materialists' are elitists.

Materialists don't seek to impose their materialism on other workers. Quite the opposite, they seek to persuade other workers to embrace materialism, to share a world unfettered by, often, self-imposed ignorance.

I have to assume that you're genuine, rodmanlewis, in your 'persuasion of workers'. So I'll try to explain why you're barking up the wrong tree.If socialism is 'democratic workers', and materialism is 'undemocratic elitism', then your advice would read:"Elitist Materialists don't seek to impose their elite materialism on other democratic workers. Quite the opposite, they seek to persuade other democratic workers to embrace elitist materialism, to share a world unfettered by, often, self-imposed (ie. by democratic workers themselves) ignorance."The assumption that 'ignorance' is 'self-imposed' is a staggeringly elitist assumption.No mention of 'ignorance being socially produced', or by whom this 'ignorance' is 'produced', but a simple elitist assumption that the 'materialists' have a 'truth', that any un-ignorant workers would clearly choose.The very opposite is true, rodmanlewis.The 'materialists' are completely ignorant of the socio-historic emergence of 'bourgeois science', and its ruling class assumptions, which are the ruling class ideas which tell workers that they are too ignorant to create their own 'truth' of their world, and the 'materialists' ignore Marx and 'social production', and simply accept the myth that they have been peddled, by the ruling class.So, I'm afraid it's the democratic workers who'll be giving the advice, to the self-imposedly ignorant 'materialists', about how the workers will build socialism, and not the expert elite of the adherents of 'materialism' (the philosophy of the Leninists, naturally).Does this help you discard your own 'self-imposed ignorance'?If you want further help in overthrowing your bourgeois ideology, I can recommend reading Marx.

[Author]

Posts