LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Marx wrote:The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. 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 ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance.
Here's a Democratic Communist translation of Marx's piss-poor text, replacing 'material' with 'social production':"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling socially productive force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. 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 ideal expression of the dominant social production relationships, the dominant social production relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance."Now, doesn't that make much more sense of the whole thrust of Marx's ideas?And make laughable Engels' complete failure to understand?Well, if it wasn't so tragic… because we're still dominated by 'matter' and its political complement, Leninism.
YMS wrote:I find Marx & Engels prose to be so much clearer, but the emphasis is on the material production of ideas, and the possession of the means of mental production is the key difference.[my bold]So, you don't understand Marx, then, YMS.When Marx uses the term 'material', he is referring to 'social production', by active humans, not to 'matter'.It was Engels' complete misunderstanding of Marx that infected the socialist movement, and so your ideas, too.Engels thought that when Marx used the term 'material', Marx was referring to 'material' (meaning 'matter').But Marx, in the intellectual context of his times, was contrasting 'material' production (ie. human production) with 'ideal' production (ie. divine production).So, if one reads Marx and replaces his term 'material' with the more accurate and clearer term 'social production', it all falls into place. Of course, this clearly fits with his notion of 'theory and practice', which requires both ideal and material. He even said this was his intent, in both his Theses on Feuerbach and in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. And even in Capital, he says that theory proceeds the activity of humans. I've given the relevant quotes many times.So, YMS, the key difference is not in Marx's and my texts, but in Marx and my understanding of them, and your understanding of them.You follow Engels, and not Marx.By 'material', in the contemporary usage, Marx means 'ideal-material'. He took divine production and placed it in our hands. Engels ditched this, and placed production back in the hands of the god 'Matter'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Anyway, back to the German ideology by Marx and Engels to clarify matters:Quote:The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. 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 ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think. Insofar, therefore, as they rule as a class and determine the extent and compass of an epoch, it is self-evident that they do this in its whole range, hence among other things rule also as thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age: thus their ideas are the ruling ideas of the epoch. For instance, in an age and in a country where royal power, aristocracy, and bourgeoisie are contending for mastery and where, therefore, mastery is shared, the doctrine of the separation of powers proves to be the dominant idea and is expressed as an “eternal law.”Can you tell me the difference, YMS, between this quote by Marx, and my post above?Except, of course, that mine is a damn sight clearer.
LBird wrote:First comes the politics of production, which produces philosophy, which produces physics.In production, we have the 'theory and practice' of the bourgeoisie, who employ their concept of 'private property'. By its nature, this concept precludes any 'democratic interference' in itself. 'Private property' just 'is', and it is alleged by those with power to be eternal, and not subject to socio-historical analysis of its emergence, and thus not changable.This concept of 'private property' is thus then similarly reproduced within philosophy, where it is called 'matter'. By its nature, this concept precludes any 'democratic interference' in itself. 'Matter' just 'is', and it is alleged by those with power to be eternal, and not subject to socio-historical analysis of its emergence, and thus not changable.This concept of 'matter' is thus then similarly reproduced within physics, where it is employed in social practice, by those 'practical men' who have not the slightest interest or ability in philosophical issues, and so we have the sight of Einstein and Bohr (the quote was helpfully provided by DJP, earlier) playing with their 'mud pies and rocks', and unable to provide a way forward for a democratic physics (of course, based upon a democratic philosophy and democratic production).alanjjohnstone wrote:Hmmm…seems as if LBird has been placed into check…Could it well be check-mate…Game, set and match…Here at the Crucible, there are hushed voices as LBird, surveys the table for a shot that gets him out of the snooker and into safety while the opposition prowl around ready to pounce upon their prey…Can it be all over, or will LBird score in the last seconds of injury time?Oh, this is getting exciting…who said i was a boring old debate…it has everything…high tension…emotion…i'm on tenterhooks for the next post …No idea what it is all about but who cares…it is drama in the making…that i can tell.It's relatively easy to understand, alan.First comes the politics of production, which produces philosophy, which produces physics.In production, we have the 'theory and practice' of the bourgeoisie, who employ their concept of 'private property'. By its nature, this concept precludes any 'democratic interference' in itself. 'Private property' just 'is', and it is alleged by those with power to be eternal, and not subject to socio-historical analysis of its emergence, and thus not changable.This concept of 'private property' is thus then similarly reproduced within philosophy, where it is called 'matter'. By its nature, this concept precludes any 'democratic interference' in itself. 'Matter' just 'is', and it is alleged by those with power to be eternal, and not subject to socio-historical analysis of its emergence, and thus not changable.This concept of 'matter' is thus then similarly reproduced within physics, where it is employed in social practice, by those 'practical men' who have not the slightest interest or ability in philosophical issues, and so we have the sight of Einstein and Bohr (the quote was helpfully provided by DJP, earlier) playing with their 'mud pies and rocks', and unable to provide a way forward for a democratic physics (of course, based upon a democratic philosophy and democratic production).That task, which cannot be completed by bourgeois physicists, philosophers, or property owners, is awaiting the class conscious proletariat, when it revolutionises its world.As Charlie said, 'All that is solid melts into air' – including 'matter'.But this sort of revolutionary thinking plays no part in the worldview of the Engelsist-Kautsky-Lenin 'socialists'. They claim to 'know matter' as it is.Dickheads, the lot of them.I know that you're confused, alan, but, for christsake, don't listen to them.
ALB wrote:And the insults are a bit more refined on the ICC forum despite them being violent revolutionaries.One more bit of information worth considering about the ICC.They've never banned me for what I've been arguing.
Young Master Smeet wrote:What does:Quote:Marx was right and Engels was wrongMean? Right and wrong about what?
What you were asking about.
Young Master Smeet wrote:What does:Quote:'ingredient into activityMean?
It means Marx was right and Engels was wrong.But that meaning has no meaning for you, YMS, because you're not a Marxist (you don't read 'dead' people's ideas), and refuse to accept Marx's 'theory and practice'.'Knowing' requires an 'active knower'.Gnomic, eh, for those uncomprehending of Marx's philosophy – you lot just want 'practical answers', and none of this 'thinking' shit.
SocialistPunk wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:How does activity create matter?Does "inorganic nature" exist prior to activity?What's your opinion? I'm not the only person here, others watching might be interested to hear, ignore me, reply as if I were dead and my ideology with me. Give your opinion to the world.There are others watching who would be happy to hear LBird provide actual answers for a change.
But I have provided the answer, SP.You just don't want to read it.If one is an Engelsist, matter is not created by socio-historical theory and practice, but just 'is'.Since there are no Marxists here, who want to discuss the social ideologies behind 'science', I'm wasting my time saying all that yet again.There's no mystery to all this, SP. You admit that you won't hear of active, crictical, creative workers producing their world.You won't have humans being the 'active side' in the production of a 'creative socialism'. You said this, not me.Marx's answers are about socio-historical production, and I've explained in great detail the socio-historical emergence of a class dedicated to pretending to remove creative consciousness from the world, and insist that it just 'is'.And you lot, as good Engelsists, simply want to know 'matter' as it is and pretend that you're not actually using your social minds.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?'.You want to 'know' without a 'knower'.Einstein argued that 'the theory determines what we observe', which is an echo of Marx's 'theory and practice'.I can only answer the question from a Marxist perspective, but you lot want an answer from an Engelsist perspective.So, that's what I'm giving youse:'Matter' exists outside of any socio-historical theory and practice.And good luck with building your travesty of socialism with that complete crap.
ALB wrote:Quote:What does 'exist' mean?Actually, YMS, that's a good question. I think it means "is real". I know this doesn't solve the problem for dualists who think that there is an "inorganic" and an "organic" nature as to which of them is really real or whether they both exist or, for that matter, whether one existed prior to the other.
[my bold]And, for you, ALB, is the 'real' socially produced, as Marx argued?Or is it just 'out there', outside of any relationship to a 'consciousness', as Engels argued?
Young Master Smeet wrote:How does activity create matter?Does "inorganic nature" exist prior to activity?What's your opinion? I'm not the only person here, others watching might be interested to hear, ignore me, reply as if I were dead and my ideology with me. Give your opinion to the world.[my bold]RIP YMS.
Young Master Smeet wrote:How does activity create matter?Does "inorganic nature" exist prior to activity?What's your opinion?You won't let me answer, YMS, because your Engelsist ideology tells you that only 'matter' can answer, so my opinion is 'idealism'.
Young Master Smeet, post #11, wrote:oh, p.s. Marx is dead, he has no opinion of anything.You'll have to ask for Marx's opinion, YMS, rather than Engels' – oh, wait, Engels is dead, too – you'll have to consult direct with 'matter', I'm afraid, YMS.You and ALB apparently have a 'special' way of asking 'matter' without worrying about 'consciousness', so that should present you with no trouble.Has ALB got matter's number?Ask him that one.
Young Master Smeet wrote:How does activity create matter?Does "inorganic nature" exist prior to activity?What do you think?'Think'? Your Engelsist ideology does not recognise 'thinking', YMS, because 'thinking' is 'ideological', and a 'thinker' is an 'Idealist'.If I tell you what we're 'thinking', and why we 'think' it, and where and when those 'thoughts' emerged socio-historically, you acccuse me of 'idealism'.Why not just ask 'matter'? For you, 'matter' is the 'active side'. Then you won't have to waste your time with the 'dead thinkers' that you abhor so much.It's so much more modern to ask the 'rocks' what they 'think', isn't it? And have done with all this 'philosophy' stuff that's plagued the 'clear thinking' of us 'dead matter'.
ALB wrote:LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:How does activity create matter?Engels says that it doesn't, and that 'matter' exists prior to activity.
Ask him this one, YMS: Does "inorganic nature" exist prior to activity?
I'm surprised an Engelsist like you, ALB, full of 'contempt' for Marxism, has even thought of that!What does 'exist' mean?YMS, ask ALB that one.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Quote:Engels says that it doesn't.Engels is dead, he has no opinion of anything.How does activity create matter?Does "inorganic nature" exist prior to activity?What do you think? You're not dead, are you?
Yes, since we are made of 'dead matter', we're all dead, too, YMS.Wow! The results of your Engelsist ideology are amazing!
