Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
‘The active, conscious subject creates its object for itself. There is no ‘nature’ outside of human conscious activity, outside of humanity’s social production.’
The Idealist Manifesto right there – Marx would have laughed at such absurdity.
‘Whilst I acknowledge the influence of marketing on music, I would argue that with greater creative access you get greater musical creativity and that creativity always out does the marketing strategy of capitalism.’
That’s a very optimistic attitude emphasising the liberating power of music (art) and it is something I would embrace however creativity is not enough – art is a conversation and needs an audience. Understanding this zeitgeist is not entirely to do with marketing but also with cultural and class conditioning. Claiming that it is purely subjective is like believing in ‘free will’ and we know how determinism works culturally and politically in all aspects of life.
DJP – Are you missing my point? BD was suggesting musical taste was an individual decision whereas I’m pointing out the power of marketing and cultural conditioning that lays behind aesthetic taste (or the lack of).
‘Which goes to show the individuality of musical taste’
Not really BD, if that was the case then how do you explain the ubiquity of the meaningless crap that characterizes popular music today?One of the many strange assumptions of LBird is that the failure of the Soviet Union was a failure of ‘materialism’. He keeps insisting that Lenin’s so-called ‘materialist’ ideology was somehow important in the Bolshevik power grab in 1917 and its subsequent hold on power. Lenin’s attempt to turn Marxism into an ideology had no significance (apart from confusing the Left) in the rise to power of that bunch of opportunist thugs called Bolsheviks.
‘Count yourselves lucky a Catholic education gave you an historical awareness and a good sound schooling which enabled you to have thought processes which led you to socialism.’
I believe there is more ‘historical’ evidence for the existence of King Arthur than there is for Jesus Christ. I don’t know any socialists who believe a ‘Catholic’ education, whether their own or others, enabled ‘thought processes leading them to socialism’.
Reading the text it would appear that Suhuyini was very proud of the original pre-Muslim culture he came from (the reason for him changing his name) and that’s why I included the tradition dress image. Whilst I’ve been working on the Standard we have very rarely (for what reason I’m not sure) included a portrait in an obituary.
‘The ‘scientific elite’ of any mode are a key part of the ruling class’
No they’re not – they’re working class just like you and me. The ruling class couldn’t tell you the difference between a quark and a quasar and care less.
‘scientific’ elite and a benighted mass.’
Has there ever been such an elite taking the place of a traditional or state capitalist ruling class? As far as I know a ruling class always derives its political power, in the final analysis, from the ownership and control of the means of production. How could a ‘scientific elite’ achieve this? There seems to be no historical precedence for such an unlikely occurrence. Scientists are just wage slaves like the rest of us.
LBird – When I have a moment I’ll try and figure out what Marx meant by ‘naturalism’ and ‘humanism’ and if these terms mean something different from their common usage today. If it turns out that this implies that we can or should vote on the veracity of scientific truth then, as I say, I believe he was mistaken.
‘This is another myth, Wez. I’ve been quoting Marx, here, for years, but they were always constantly ignored.’
LBird – One last time then, give me a quote, sentence or paragraph from Marx’s work that supports your interpretation.Marx was rather unclear about this issue – I suppose one of the reasons being that he never completed his major work hence my uncertainty. It doesn’t really matter because if he thought either what you interpret his meaning to be about science or my interpretation I believe both to be mistaken. Of course we’ve been here before and you have been asked to produce quotes or passages supporting your interpretation from Marx’s text and you have always failed to do so. So please do so if you can as although I may disagree with Marx on some points I always respect his opinion.
‘Not according to Marx, Wez. Humans socially produce their ‘nature’.
Otherwise, ‘material conditions’ will determine ‘socialism’, rather than humanity.’LBird – perhaps it would be more correct to say that material conditions have created consciousness that will enable (through the socialist revolution) people to impose their consciousness on material conditions for the first time in history.
I suppose people come to an understanding and acceptance of the case for socialism in different ways. For me it was through comparing ideas about the world, how it functions and what can be done to change it. Such ideas had to exhibit a corresponding truth which helped explain my experience of life. Presumably others achieve consciousness without an exclusively intellectual approach although surely this always has to be an element at whatever level. This is why I demur from Marx’s apparent belief that the praxis of ‘scientific socialism’ replaced philosophy as the way forward. The ‘idea’ that socialism represents the end of philosophy seems to me to be as nonsensical as Fukuyama’s belief that capitalism represented the end of history. By the by LBird I believe Marx thought that philosophy enabled and/or created an elite in the past and that science was more democratic – hasn’t really turned out like that has it?
