LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Young Master Smeet wrote:Relational between what? If there is no quality of nature, there is no relationship.Quote:No, I keep saying, we produce 'organic nature' from 'inorganic nature', by social theory and practice.
If there is no quality to 'inorganic nature' then there is no need for Marx and Pancake to refer to it (a simple textual matter). There is only social theory and practice producing organic nature (or society, for Cakey boy).What I want is for you to respond to this simple peice of logic.
Which 'piece of logic' would that be, YMS?What's so difficult about understanding a productive relationship between an active, creative humanity and 'inorganic nature'.You simply want 'quality' to be within 'inorganic nature'.Marx argues that we produce our 'organic nature', which is clearly where 'qualities' lie. That is the 'qualities' are 'relational qualities'.
YMS wrote:Accordng to oyu, nature is a blank slate we can write anything on we want, is that not the case?No, I keep saying, we produce 'organic nature' from 'inorganic nature', by social theory and practice.This is nothing to do with a mythical 'blank slate nature', which is a concept that only makes sense to materialists, or humans 'doing anything they want'.It's a social production relationship.You want to discuss some mythical 'nature out there' which is fixed, and can be known passively, as it is.Our 'nature' is the dynamic product of human labour.That's why we can change it, which is the whole point of Marx's philosophical works.You want to passively observed something that is fixed, something that is not our product, and thus that we can't change.You want to interpret the world, as it is.
YMS wrote:…qualities of natural phenomena…But, as we have seen with Marx and Pannekoek, 'qualities of natural phenomena' are produced by active humanity. 'Natural qualities' are relational 'qualities', not 'something out there'.Because you are a materialist, you want to know of some mythical 'qualities of natural phenomena' in themselves, without any consciounsess being involved. This is the bourgeois myth of 'knowledge' being simply a reflection of 'nature', and requires a passive stance on the part of the observer.
YMS wrote:If there is no difference or quality, then nature does not exist.This is an ideological statement – you wish 'nature' to exist outside of active humanity, whereas Marx and Pannekoek are talking about humans producing their own 'nature'.And I've told you, 'differences and qualities' do exist, and are produced by active humanity.You won't accept this claim, because you're not a Marxist or Pannekoekian, but an Engelsist.You want to 'know' nature as it is without any 'knower' being actively involved. At best, you'll accept a passive observer, which is a bourgeois myth.Even Einstein said 'the theory determines what we observe', therefore bolstering Marx's claims of 'theory and practice'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:YMS wrote:…mere accdient suffices…Who or what determines what is 'accident'?
No one needs to…
[my bold]But that is not what Pannekoek says. He says that humans are actively involved in producing our world.Marx says the same thing, and always talks about 'social production' to meet our 'needs'.So, someone 'needs' to determine what is produced.You're a materialist, YMS, and wish to passively observe the world 'as it is', and to pretend to keep 'consciousness' out of the consideration. This is a bourgeois myth.'Consciousness' and 'being' are in an inescapable relationship.We are our own producers, determiners, differentiators… we are in an active relationship with 'inorganic nature', within which creative relationship we build our own 'organic nature'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird,But as we had out before, you refused to accept that 'inorganic nature' is differentiated, and at least limits what we can do with it, and thus we have not got unbounded freedom to will some truth out of nature, we can only do with it what we can.Who or what 'differentiates' nature, YMS?Like Marx and Pannekoek, I regard 'differentiation' as a product of an active consciousness, specifically human social theory and practice.The alternative formulation, that 'nature differentiates itself' outside of any consciousness, is a return to the separation of 'being' from 'consciousness', the bourgeois materialism that Engels fell for.If humans are not the 'active side', then there must be a 'divine' force out there.There isn't, of course, and so if it is denied that humanity is the 'active side', a smaller part of society must substitute itself for the greater part.Marx warned about this in his Theses on Feuerbach, and the Leninists proved Marx right, because Lenin was forced to posit a 'special consciousness' outside of (wider) humanity. This elite expert minority then tells us that they, and they alone, can tell us the 'differentiation of nature'. But they are the active differentiators. And so the proletariat remains passive.The search for 'The Truth' of a 'nature outside of consciousness' is a bourgeois myth.Human consciousness is inescapably involved in the creation of our nature.Read your Pannekoek quote.
YMS wrote:Herein is Lbirds apparent claims clearly and much better expressed, but note the difference, there is no denial that the external world exists or that we can just make up our science by will alone…C'mon, YMS, even you must be getting tired of repeating this old canard.Marx does not 'deny the existence of the external world' – he calls it 'inorganic nature'.For Marx, the link between 'inorganic nature' and the world-we-create, nature-for-us, 'organic nature', is active humanity, employing social theory and practice, to create our world.Even Pannekoek, in the quote you supposedly have read, says that:
Pannekoek wrote:…[humanity] is a dynamic force which reacts upon his environment and changes it. Society is nature transformed through labour.You simply, like a good materialist, want to passively observe 'nature'. You want to know 'nature' as it is, without human intervention.Pannekoek uses the term 'stuff of nature' for what Marx calls 'inorganic nature' – this is an ingredient into our labour, which results in our creation of our world.The 'stuff of nature' cannot be passively observed, but only used.You're following a confused Engels, and I'm following Marx and Pannekoek.You think that there are only two options, 'materialism' and 'idealism', and so, with you being a 'materialist', and me not, you can only pidgeon-hole me as an 'idealist' – hence, your continual nonsense about me 'denying an external reality'.For god's sake, YMS, read your own quotes, and admit that you're reading them from the position of Engels' materialism.
Tim Killgallon wrote:…we cannot democraticaly control the outcome of physical experiments, 2+2 equals four, no matter how many times any gorup of individuals vote to say ot doesn't.[my bold]Tim, you're new to the site, so you won't know.I've shown many times that we can control the outcome of all experiments, and 2+2 can equal 11, and that both can be decided by a vote.Of greater philosophical significance is your use of the qualifier 'physical'.You won't recognise the importance of your use of that, but to any other readers who have followed this with interest, it should stand out like a sore thumb, as the mark of a 'materialist' (the modern term being a 'physicalist').
ALB wrote:He's just done it again. He accused me of being the sort of materialist which has "'tangible matter'"as its "central concern".ALB, I specifically asked you on the other thread what does 'means' (of production) include.I said it includes 'ideas', including physics and maths, and so 'democratic control of the means of production' means ''democratic control of physics and maths'.You argued against this, You said, in effect, 'means' includes only 'tangible stuff' and not 'ideas'.Now, you clown, give us a straight answer:Do you agree that the revolutionary proletariat should democratically control 'maths and physics'?If you say 'No', you're an Engelsist Materialism.If you say 'Yes', like me, you're a Marxist Idealist-Materialist.Fuckin' hell, it's simple enough.Either workers control 'maths' or an elite controls 'maths'.You want 'mathematicians' to control 'maths'; 'physicists' to control 'physics', etc. etc., which will end in a 'party' controlling 'politics'. Engels' materialism leads inexorably to Leninism.
ALB wrote:I rest my case, but I can't keep on correcting your distortions every time you repeat them. It happens so often.ALB, I answered your post on the other thread about Dietzgen, and told you he argued for 'induction' (ie. practice and theory), so he wasn't using Marx's method of 'theory and practice'.You haven't continued that discussion.The only distorter in all this is you.You 'distort' your ideology, and pretend to be a Marxist. You are an Engelsist.This ignoring by you of what you're told 'happens so often', and is always followed by you insulting me, that I can only conclude that you've got a problem with learning.I presume that there is a 'psychological connection' between 'ignorance and insulting', but you'll have to get the 'expert' Tim to explain that one.Meanwhile, if you want to discuss Dietzgen, read what I write, and make some progress.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Just to add some psychological observations of my own, LBird, having read your earlier post on how you consider the Party to be, you must have one of the strongest streaks of masochism i have come across for you persistence in debating and discussing on this forum if you recognise the futility and fruitlessness of it No matter how much you are spurned, you keep coming back for moreIs it unrequited love, Lbird?…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwjS3_cZdN8&list=PL5_uypbSMXwCa_nxqQVu46MgJZDPwM4_y&index=10Good one, alan! It made me burst out laughing – perhaps with uncomfortable self-recognition!
Vin wrote:The medical profession will be under democratic control, I don't need to know how to run the canteen.Fair enough, Vin, that's your individual opinion.But who decides who runs the 'medical profession' and 'the canteen'?If you agree with me, that it is democratic society, then it's society that decides what the 'medical profession' does and does not do with its production, not the 'medical profession' itself.If we, for whatever reason, decide that the 'medical profession' cleans the bogs, the 'medical profession' cleans the bogs.The only problem with accepting this formulation is for those who fear that the class conscious, revolutionary proletariat will make our surgeons and doctors clean shithouses, and will order plasterers to do heart surgery!Those stupid workers, eh? Wouldn't trust them to run a piss-up in a brewery, never mind physics and maths!I'll spell it out for you, Vin, because I know you don't do subtlety.It's a philosophical attitude towards the merits of democracy versus elitistism.Those brainwashed by the bourgeoisie fear democracy, because they fear the 'masses', and prefer to look to geniuses and 'special individuals', rather than that great unknown 'the democratic control of the means of production (and operations)'.
Bourgeois thinkers always want to find the root of any issue in individual psychology, eh, Tim, and not in political and philosophical, that is, social and historical, origins?Back to the crayons, Janet and John, and the Ladybird publication "Tim constructs a bourgeois argument", for you.
ALB wrote:…his definition of socialism is not all that far from ours and not nearer to that of the SWP's state capitalism. He does agree that socialism is a society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production which will make money, wages, profits, banks, etc redundant but –and it's a big but — he adds something rather sinister — that democratic control should extent to what people think, i.e thought control, which of course has never been part of the historical definition of socialism[my bold]You're perfectly correct, ALB, we do have much in common.But you're a 'materialist', which has its roots in bourgeois biological individualism. Hence 'tangible matter' as its central concern.Here, I've bolded your ideological concern – 'Individual Free Thought'.No socio-historical, Marxist, analysis of what 'thought' means.Your political and philosophical, unrecognised, unacknowledged assumption is that 'thought' is individual, not a social product.In fact, 'thought' is always a product of societies, not 'genius individuals', so our 'thought' in a democratic society would have to be democratically produced.This is a scary 'thought' for 'individualists', who have been progammed from birth by the bourgeoisie that 'they are individuals!', and that their thought is theirs.It's nonsense of course, and is merely a figleaf for the 'individual thought' of the 'elite', who obviously wish to keep their thought uncontrolled by the producers.So, here we have it – ALB is using standard bourgeois scare-mongering:The Commies will take not only your property, and daughters, but even your thoughts!
ALB wrote:Tim Kilgallon wrote:Vin, I think that's an excellent point. Come on then L Bird, we're all waiting.I'm not. We don't want him contaminating this thread. If we must accommodate him let's try and contain him in a thread devoted to his obession of what is knowlefge. Mind you, I suppose he has his uses as a foil and punchball.
ALB, I'm just returning your abuse in the same terms, you dickhead.On the other thread, I was very patient and courteous, and explained some complexities to you, about your 'materialism'. You didn't abuse me, so I didn't abuse you. I treated you like a grown-up.But, this thread?You seem to be a very slow learner. I despair that you'll ever learn, about either your ill-manners or your ill-education.The SPGB should let alan vet members' posts on here, because at least alan makes the SPGB seem vaguely attractive, unlike youse ignorant louts.This is your party's 'shop window', for god's sake! Even I came here, actively following you and alan from LibCom, to browse initially and perhaps even enter, and build the concern.But… the dummies in the shop window are like a collection of zombies, banging on the glass, trying to eat my brains!
