[LBird]

moderator1 wrote:

LBird wrote:

I'll tell you what.If five posters vote openly for me to stop posting on this site, I will ask the moderator to close my account, so that I will not be tempted to post again.All I ask is that all those tempted to vote in haste, please have a look at this thread, and see if I've made at least some genuine responses to the arguments put forward by the materialists.That seems a reasonable solution, to me.

Hold your horses!!! I have no reason whatsoever to give you a permanent ban.

No, I wasn't suggesting it would be considered in anyway a 'ban'.I'm suggesting that, if five posters have had enough, then I'll voluntarily withdraw from the site. Your role of moderator would be just to meet my wishes to have my account closed.That is, the decision to leave would be mine, not an imposition by the SPGB, which is what the term 'ban' would otherwise suggest.

[LBird]

I'll tell you what.If five posters vote openly for me to stop posting on this site, I will ask the moderator to close my account, so that I will not be tempted to post again.All I ask is that all those tempted to vote in haste, please have a look at this thread, and see if I've made at least some genuine responses to the arguments put forward by the materialists.That seems a reasonable solution, to me.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Oh well, I see LBird has declined the offer to construct a coherent explanation of his theory for us to digest. Instead preferring the practice of elitist….err…"intellectual" trolling.In my experience if a person can't explain in simple, coherent terms what they want to convey, it usually means they don't know what they're on about.I'm out, and I strongly suggest everyone else avoids temptation to counter attack. It's what LBird wants.

I don't want anybody 'out' or 'counter-attacking'.I want a reasoned discussion, rather than to be abused.Further, I've explained in 'simple, coherent terms', but the problem lies with you.Whilst you won't tell us what your 'theory' is, I can't explain why you can't accept those 'simple, coherent terms'.I suspect it's because you're an Engelsian materialist, but you keep pretending that you're just a disinterested observer, trying to 'simply' understand.This is an ideological pretence, but you don't seem to realise it.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

…calls us "Leninists" (which they know will infuriate us in view of our consistent opposition to Leninism since the beginning)…

Yes, I was hoping that you would become 'infuriated' enough to actually look at the links between 'materialism' and Lenin.I changed to this method because the method of reasoned discussion, providing quotes and expecting logical debate didn't work.When you all got sick of my providing quotes from all and sundry to back up my arguments, you turned to abuse.It's not my fault that I'm better read in Marx and Engels, and dozens of other thinkers, than you lot. I'm that interested that I've bought and read almost all the books recommended to me, by you and others.

ALB wrote:

…whereas we have repeatedly said that we share with the same sort of criticism Pannekoek made of this "mechanical" or "bourgeois" materialism in his Lenin As Philosopher.

But Pannekoek talks out of his arse, half the time.We've never got to discussing his thought, because to discuss, one has to expose one's own position of observation. It's pointless discussing Pannekoek unless one knows what one believes in contrast to Pannekoek.

SP wrote:

SP suggests that this is the action of a troll. Not necessarily, but it would be cruel to spell out the alternative explanation.

The alternative, and I will spell it out, is that I'm better read, more critical, and clearer about my position, than you lot.

ALB wrote:

Basically, for whatever reason, you've cried "Englesist", "Leninist" once too much. Enough is enough.

No, it's not enough. It must be said until you realise that materialism is a dead end for the revolutionary proletariat.If one is not a Marxist or a democrat in knowledge production, as YMS isn't, this consideration is of little concern. But I'd expect those, like you, ALB, who seem to me to be genuine in their protestations of being Marxists, to take this seriously.Sticking your heads in the sand is not an alternative.Banning me is, however. But, that's your collective choice.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I have a very strong tendency to agree with you DJP. Bu tas socialists we do advocate a voice for the minority view. So in that spirit I simply suggest LBird takes the offer to once and for all coherently lay out his theory in one go.

But 'my theory' is 'Democratic Communism'.So, when asked 'who elects matter', I say 'we all do'.It's those with something to hide who won't agree with this, and they pretend not to have a 'theory'.Mine is also consistent with Einstein's view that 'the theory determines what we observe', which is a later formulation of Marx's 'theory and practice'.So, I've been entirely open.How about the rest of you?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

What does everyone else think?

To be honest I don't know why anyone is still wasting there time with this self-obsessed charlatan. That's what I think.

Christ, you're digging up the dead, now!

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

That should help us to get to grips with what your theory is.

But you haven't yet 'got to grips with' what your own 'theory is', so how can you presume to understand mine?I say quite openly that my 'theory' is the same as Marx's: Democratic Communism.You pretend that you haven't got a 'theory', which is itself a product of bourgeois ideology.That you, as an individual, can 'know matter', because 'matter' is 'tangible' and you can 'feel' it.Once 'matter' is seen to be an invention of a society with 'private property', all this 'individualist, biological' nonsense goes out the window, and we're compelled to socially address 'what we know' (and not 'what I know'). And 'social knowledge' implies democracy, for us socialists at least, if not for elitists.

SP wrote:

If you choose not to do this, we can only draw one conclusion, that you are a troll. In which case I would suggest everyone ends all discussion with you.What do you say?

If you say that I'm a troll, I'll merely say that you're an uneducated wanker, in thrall to Religious Materialism and its god 'Matter', and a critical thought has never passed between your ears.So, let's not sling insults, either way, eh, comrade?

SP wrote:

What does everyone else think?

It'd be nice for once for 'everyone else' to actually 'think' – just for a change.There's a simple solution for 'everyone' – either all resolve to learn, or most ignore me, and leave only those who wish to read, discuss and think (or, I suppose, you could ban me permanently, but that wouldn't look good for the SPGB, would it?).

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, we have the nonsense about 'idealism' and Kant.

Indeed, we do. For instance

Quote:

'Inorganic nature' is an unknowable 'in itself' ingredient for active human social theory and practice.

Quote:

No matter how many times I repeat that 'inorganic nature' is an 'ingredient into activity', your ideology tells you to ask 'But, what is it, when it's not an 'ingredient into activity?'.

This theory that "ultimate reality" is an unobservable and so unknowable Ding an sich is pure Kant, which opens the door to all sorts of idealist and theist views.

[my bold]And, indeed, as even Engels said, also to a Marxist view. Marx came from the German Idealist tradition. The difference is Kant's passivity, as against Marx's activity.

ALB wrote:

You are one and it is dishonest as well as ignorant to try to saddle Marx and certainly Pannekoek with such a view.

No, I'm the one who is both honest and educated, unlike you, and point out the socio-historical context of Marx and Pannekoek's views, also unlike you.

ALB wrote:

Why not admit it instead of spreading lies about us being crude mechanical materialists who think that the mind is merely a mirror reflecting what's out there?

I'm not 'spreading lies' about the SPGB, I'm trying to teach you about Marx, Engels, Idealism, Materialism, Marx's unity, the differences between them, and where politically those philosophical differences lead.Youse are crude materialists, even you said so yourself, when asked about what the constituents of 'means of production' actually were. You said 'material' things, and not ideas.And if we don't create our physics, then physics must be a mirrorlike reflection on 'out there'.I'm the one saying that maths, physics and all science is a socio-historical creation.Youse are the ones arguing that these are 'discovering' what is simply 'to hand'. If that's true, then, once discovered, these 'things at hand' must have always been 'out there', simply waiting to be 'discovered'.If we create maths, physics and science, we can change them. These social activities do not 'discover' an 'objective reality' sitting 'out there'. The present bourgeois maths, etc., give us a picture of a world created by the bourgeoisie. If we accept that picture as 'eternally true', an 'objective account', an image of 'out there', how do we change it in the future?FFS, ALB, you must be able to tell the difference between an educated critic with whom you disagree (at the present), and a dishonest liar.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Quote:

At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement.

Ahem…

Quote:

man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate Nature’s productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature.

So, man takes nature as he finds it, changes it, in accordance with his own imagination, and is in turn changed by nature.  See what happens when you highlight different bits?So, just to make clear, nature "produces" (according to Marx); action in the world changes the human being (accordinmg to Marx); these "reactions" are "material" according to Marx.Of course, Marx never says what he means.  Nature here means "fish", reaction means "social productive forces", material means "Spain". 

I don't know how you can ignore what Marx says, about just 'who' is the initiator.There is not one word about 'matter' telling us humans what to produce.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Why some people fail to heed the law of holes is beyond me.

Bruce Lee wrote:

Mistakes are always forgivable, if one has the courage to admit them.

 

I'm waiting for you to do so, SP.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

…for whom material production follows in the wake of thought production.

Marx wrote:

Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate Nature’s productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumbering powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway. We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms of labour that remind us of the mere animal. An immeasurable interval of time separates the state of things in which a man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, from that state in which human labour was still in its first instinctive stage. We pre-suppose labour in a form that stamps it as exclusively human. A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a result that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at its commencement.

[my bold]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm

[LBird]

twc wrote:

All they need to do is own and control the material means of social production—as in the SPGB’s Object—and the social superstructure (or social consciousness) will follow materialistically in its wake.

[ my bold]I know what you're arguing, twc.And this argument is Engels not Marx.It's tantamount to saying 'consciousness' follows 'matter'. Or, to put it in terms any workers can understand, that 'the rocks talk to us'.It's exactly what the Leninists argue, too: let the Party 'own and control the material', and then the wider class 'social consciousness will follow materialistically in its wake'.Because, if the wider class themselves already 'own and control', then the 'social consciousness' must have preceded, not 'followed'.'Materialism' requires a passive class, lacking class consciousness. It allows an elite with a (supposed) special consciousness to provide the 'active side', as Marx warned.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

By 'idealism', Marx means 'divine production', not 'using ideas' or 'active consciousness'.

He also referred to 'idealism'  as the belief that the material world is a reflection of the idea. That all we have to do is 'think' something into existence.

[my bold]I have never said humans can simply 'think into existence'.That's the reading of a materialist, who can't understand Marx, and has to condemn those who argue for human creativity as 'idealists'. They get this from Engels' dichotomy, that all philosophy is either materialism or idealism, which is nonsense.Marx argues that human theory and practice brings things into existence.I ALWAYS say 'theory and practice', and never 'theory', alone.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

Once again, Vin, who creates 'the material conditions' that they, according to you, passively   'find at hand'?

Well whoever created them, created them out of the conditions the found at hand. Hisorically or otherwise. I have highlight the distortion you added 'passively' your word not mine, but typical of you.

Believe me, comrade, that 'distortion', which I clearly added, was done to clarify for you exactly what the implications, for human activity, the passive formulation 'finding at hand', actually are.As to 'historically or otherwise', Vin, that's precisely what is at issue.If it's 'historically', it's produced by humans; if it's 'otherwise', it's produced by god, outside of human history.Again, for you, who does create 'conditions'? Are they simply 'found at hand'?

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

They can't answer the question 'who does create our world?', which is a vital question for workers to answer for themselves.

Vin wrote:

Marx and SPGB,  'humans create their world from the material  conditions they find at hand'

Once again, Vin, who creates 'the material conditions' that they, according to you, passively 'find at hand'?If you accept that, by 'material', Marx means 'socially produced', then we can change those 'material conditions', because we don't simply 'find them at hand', but we have created them socio-historically.If, on the other hand, by 'material', you accept Engels meaning of 'matter', then you'll think that we don't create 'matter', and so we can't change it.Many thinkers have pointed out that 'materialism' is itself a form of 'idealism', because it must give the creative role to a divine being (or pretend to, but actually give it to an elite, behind the backs of the majority of humans), and not to humans.By 'idealism', Marx means 'divine production', not 'using ideas' or 'active consciousness'.

[Author]

Posts