LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
mcolome1 wrote:https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1958/dunayevskaya.htm Probably, Paul Mattick describes much better her amivalenceThanks 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.
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'.
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'.
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]
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.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I came across this thought on my web travels and thought it was of some import.Quote:This is no mere matter of “difference of opinion” or opposing beliefs. What separates genuine egalitarians and democrats from the mainstream goes much deeper. Political education is an essential part of organizing and movement building. It is not sufficient to expose people to more and different facts and “information.” That’s necessary, but not sufficient. It’s about a very different way of thinking about politics and economics, including that we inhabit a very different world, a different political universe, from what the mainstream political commentariat put across in every word they utter.Importance of ideology again in understaanding, isn't it?
But 'ideology' has no importance for those who've accepted the central myth of bourgeois science, that it is not 'ideological', but a 'method' that ensures a 'true' account of 'reality outside of human creative activity'. This is the complete opposite of Marx's views on 'social production', of course.In fact, your quote could be slightly edited to say…
Quote:This is no mere matter of “difference of opinion” or opposing beliefs. What separates genuine egalitarians and democrats from the Engelsist Materialists goes much deeper. Political education is an essential part of organizing and movement building. It is not sufficient to expose people to more and different facts and “information.” That’s necessary, but not sufficient. It’s about a very different way of thinking about politics and economics, including that we inhabit a very different world, a different political universe, from what the Engelsist Materialist political commentariat put across in every word they utter.…and it would help clarify even further.'Materialism' denies democracy. 'Materialists' are elitists.Every word that the 'materialists' here utter, makes that plain.'Materialism' is neither egalitarian nor democratic.It can't be the ideological basis of socialism and workers' power.And so, the 'materialists' deny that they have an ideology.
Young Master Smeet wrote:We're talking about your ideology.No, you're wrong, yet again, YMS. You must get fed up with being wrong, eh?We're talking about my ideology of Marxism from the perspective of your ideology.It seems only fair that you openly state your ideology, after all, since I openly state mine.I won't take this any further with you until you do so.My good advice, though, is for you to discuss your views with someone who shares your own ideology, because you'll gain nothing from a discussion with a Marxist.
Young Master Smeet wrote:If not, where am I going wrong?You're concealing your ideology from us, and, I suspect, from yourself.Tell us your ideology, and we can examine your axioms and assumptions, and then we can make some progress.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:Yes, our social theory and practice is our only limit.So, we could blot out the sun, travel faster than the speed of light, travel through time and have immortality, if we made that our social theory and practice?
You really do struggle to read what's being written, YMS.Which bit of 'social practice' do you not understand?You seem to be some sort of 'idealist', who thinks 'ideas alone' constitute 'theory and practice'. You should read Marx some day.Right, unless you read and respond to what I write (rather than what you want to read), I'll halt our conversation here.Your choice, YMS.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Are there any limits to what we can decide to socially produce together, or is our social theory and practice the only limit?Yes, our social theory and practice is our only limit.But, with social theory and practice varying throughout history, clearly differing modes of production have different 'limits'. So, 'limits' are socio-historical, and change.Perhaps you don't recognise the category 'mode of production' (or 'history', or 'change'), but then you'll clearly have a different ideological opinion to me.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:These are all amenable to democratic control, and will be in a socialist society, which will ensure that its social production is democratically controlled.Two questions: are there any limits to what we can decide to socially produce together, or is our will and imagination the only limit?
I'm a Marxist, YMS, and you're not. That's not a problem, you're entitled to your opinion, but, for clarity for other readers, why not just say so?Your individualist and idealist concept of 'will and imagination' is not Marx's.Marx's starts from the axiom of 'social theory and practice'.So, if you want to discuss 'will and imagination', you need to find someone, unlike me, who doesn't follow Marx on these points.
YMS wrote:Second question: if there is not, why do we need democratic control? Couldn't the minority group choose to construct a reality of their own alongside the majority reality? Why do we need democratic decisions? (Is this something to which we are constrained, or could we choose to abolish this requirement?).[my bold]Again, your focus on a 'minority group' choosing outside of democratic controls, is not a concern for those who are Democratic Communists, and think that all social production should be under the democratic control of our society.Should our society choose to delegate a measure of power to a 'minority group', then of course that can be done. But, clearly, if the 'minority group' try to follow a 'theory and practice' that is dangerous for the interests, purposes, needs and desires of the majority, then that delegated power will be withdrawn. So, 'democratic control' is an axiom for the social production of a socialist society.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Like Dave B, i don't know why people are getting het up in this discussion. I don't think there is such a chasm between us and LBirdScience is determined by politics, by democracy and by beliefs. … It is our task to create a society where when we do debate and discuss scientific "truths", that it is a level playing field and part of it is promoting democracy in science… So- called scientific "reality" is found wanting when applied in the world of people and not of profits LBird is right to emphasise in the end it is going to be us who determine truth by votes and political action and when socialism is established this process is not going to cese and we will require to develop structures and means better than to-day's clumsy democracy for us to exercise this peoples' control over science. It is going to part of Industrial Democracy, we will assume full and deeper direction of all industries, including as he said previously, the universities and the research labs – those seats of learning are not neutral and perhaps will neve will be…and it takes heretics to shake them out of prevailing ideas. I don't think we and LBird have any serious disagreement on this and i have a thick enough skin to let his debating style bounce off and just giggle to myself when he has accused us of being Leninists. If he really thought that why is he on this forum so often trying to get us to mend our ways…he recognises the affinity he shares with us and not with the SWP or SPEW.alan, I clearly agree with most of what you've written, but I still don't think the others (or you, even?) appreciate the implications for our revolutionary view of 'science'.'Reality' is a what we create, a 'reality-for-us'.'Nature' is what we create, a 'nature-for-us'.'Truth' is what we create, a 'truth-for-us'.The problem is, Lenin didn't agree with this – he held to a 'reflection theory of knowledge', as do all those who argue that they 'know' nature 'as it is'. And unfortunately, Engels also (at least in places, he was far more confused) argued for this 'copy or mirror' theory of knowledge.This is why I argue that those who don't accept Marx's method, that we create our world through social theory and practice, and so can change it (by different theory and different practice, producing a different 'object'), are in fact following Lenin and Engels.But on this issue of 'Leninism', the difference between the SWP and SPEW is that they are not democratic parties, and so minorities of workers arguing what I'm arguing cannot survive long enough to convince the cadre and thus remove the CC, but the SPGB, being democratic, has the possibility of being convinced to ditch 'Leninism in science'.Whether it does or not, of course, is yet to be decided.
ALB wrote:…what scientists are doing is not so much "discovering" the ouside world "as it is" as describing its course in a way that it can be more or less accurately predicted and so used to serve human purposes. …ALB is correct here that "discovery as it is" is not what scientists do, but rather it is "creation as it is for us".This fits with Marx's claim that we create our object. Thus the 'objective world' is a world-for-us, our creation, a 'socially-objective world'. This is what Marx means by his differentiation of 'inorganic nature' (the ingredient into our social theory and practice) and 'organic nature' (the socially-objective world, created by us, for our social purposes).
ALB wrote:In this sense, what is "true" would be what is "useful to human survival". That's my view but other members may have a different approach. I think it has something in common with this view of Marx's that "truth" is demonstracted by practice.Yes, but for Marx, the only 'practice' is social practice. This is not individuals' practice, but a social activity (ie. social labour). Thus, only the producers of their object can determine what is 'true-for-them'. Social labour produces 'truth-for-us'.
ALB wrote:As he put it, in his Theses on Feuernach:Quote:The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth — i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.For those unused to 19th century usage, when Marx write 'man' and 'his', he means 'humanity' and 'its'. Marx is not talking about individuals 'doing things', but about 'reality' being a 'reality-for-us'. The notion of a 'reality' which we can separate from our social practice, as Marx says, "is a purely scholastic question".But it doesn't stop the 'scholastics' talking about a'Mars' which is 'out there', which we 'know' simply 'as it is'.It soon becomes obvious that 'bourgeois science' is this 'scholasticism', which pretends to 'know' a 'world' that is outside of our interests, purposes, ideas and practice. These are all amenable to democratic control, and will be in a socialist society, which will ensure that its social production is democratically controlled.
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Your reply seems to indicate a grandiose sense of self importance and arrogant haughty behaviours. Two diagnostic points in one sentence. Well done, only 3 to go to meet the diagnostic criteria!'a grandiose sense of self importance and arrogant haughty behaviours'?That sounds like two insults.Let's hope no-one is watching, eh?
