[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'.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…after all, Marx never used words to mean what they mean.

You think that you're being funny, but you're closer to the real issue than you'll ever realise.Even Engels misinterpreted Marx's notoriously opaque works, and the longer his misinterpretation is taken as 'gospel', the less influence Marx's actual meanings will have to workers.But, since you're not a Marxist, YMS, you're not as interested in this issue as some of us workers are, who are keen to create our world, create our socialism.

[LBird]

As I've pointed out many times, Vin and ALB, because they are employing an unacknowledged Engelsist ideology, which tells them that there are only two forms of philosophy, materialism and idealism, and they claim to 'listen to the rocks', as do all materialists, then they must conclude that I'm an idealist, because I claim, like Marx, that humans create their world.They can't answer the question 'who does create our world?', which is a vital question for workers to answer for themselves.If we humans supposedly don't create our world, we can't change it, and worst of all we must place the power to create and change into the hands of a divine power – which the Leninists claim is 'The Party'.Vin and ALB can't answer this objection to Engels' materialism.So, we have the nonsense about 'idealism' and Kant.You wouldn't think that Marx was an inheritor of the German Idealist tradition, of Kant, Fichte and Hegel.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I learned a new word today Agnotologyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology The study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt…More generally, the term also highlights the increasingly common condition where more knowledge of a subject leaves one more uncertain than before.

[my bold]So, alan, you still can't decide between 'the rocks talk to us' and 'humans create their world'?And the SPGB is to help educate and propagandise amongst workers coming towards socialist ideas?I've always said to the Leninists/Trots that their role to learn from workers, and I think that conclusion about the SPGB adds yet another dimension to the argument that the SPGB stands in the Engelsist-Leninist tradition.Religious Materialism and its passive faith in its god 'Matter' is a blind alley, alan.But since you haven't taken off your own blindfold, you can't 'see' that, yet.Agnotology? The study of the refusal to be decisive and active.

[LBird]

Once again, the SPGB bottles intellectual discussion, and reverts to childishness.So predictable.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Quote:

socially productive force

What constitutes the socially productive force?Would they be

Quote:

the framework of definite modes of production, which, of course, are not dependent on the will, alien [fremde] practical forces, which are independent not only of isolated individuals but even of all of them together, always come to stand above people

Yes, but 'modes of production' are not 'matter', but socially produced by active humans, and so can be changed.Try reading Marx.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

 dunno, though, we have on the one hand the gnomic 'Theses on Feuerbach' and some comments from the manuscripts…

You very conveniently ignore Capital, but it doesn't surprise me, YMS.You're not reading what I write, and are determined to hang onto your Engelsist ideology, and worship 'matter' as the source of critical ideas, of 'practice and theory'.Hopefully, the penny might start to drop with others, though…

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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'.

[LBird]

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).

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

What does:

Quote:

Marx was right and Engels was wrong

Mean?  Right and wrong about what?

What you were asking about.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

What does:

Quote:

'ingredient into activity

Mean?

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.

[Author]

Posts