Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
On this issue, I thought the detractors of Engels were the ones who noted his adherence to Social Democrats, and Marx was the more rrrrevolutionary of the two, and that Lenin rediscovered the true Marx, past the social democrat turns of Engels.
I feel my reading of Marx and Engels has benefitted, with some interesting passages thrown in here and there.
'Material' is equally slippery in English, ranging from germane to cloth. But, even absent the qualification of 'world' ". In my case the opposite is nothing other than the material which is translated and translated in man's head." Given the opposition to ideal in the preceeding sentence, and discussion of the real, it's clear that material means of or pertaining to matter.
The original german:
Quote:Meine dialektische Methode ist der Grundlage nach von der Hegelschen nicht nur verschieden, sondern hir direktes Gegenteil. Für Hegel ist der Denkprozeß, den er sogar unter dem Namen Idee in ein selbständiges Subjekt verwandelt, der Demiurg des Wirklichen, das nur seine äußere Erscheinung bildet. Bei mir ist umgekehrt das Ideelle nichts andres als das im Menschenkopf umgesetzte und übersetzte Materielle.And according to google translate "umgesetzte und übersetzte" seems to be the problem (google gives both as translated), but I think -um- and uber- giving the impression of over and around put. Nonetheless, it is certainly a lot balder than anything Engels put out.Edit: Hmm, interested: after a bit of tinkering, the Internet renders that as 'unreacted/unconverted and translated', which is very different from reflected. Think we'd need a ruling from a German speaker.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanis%C5%82aw_Brzozowski_(writer)Let's not forget that Chucky himself published one of the most reductionistic phrases himself: "With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought." It took the publication of the German Ideology to displace that phrasing (and note Engel's letter (above) on the same point).
Clearly this debate is not social labour, I have to do it myself:
Engels wrote:Let us now picture to ourselves, by way of change, a community of free individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common, in which the labour power of all the different individuals is consciously applied as the combined labour power of the community. All the characteristics of Robinson’s labour are here repeated, but with this difference, that they are social, instead of individual. Everything produced by him was exclusively the result of his own personal labour, and therefore simply an object of use for himself. The total product of our community is a social product. One portion serves as fresh means of production and remains social. But another portion is consumed by the members as means of subsistence. A distribution of this portion amongst them is consequently necessary. The mode of this distribution will vary with the productive organisation of the community, and the degree of historical development attained by the producers. We will assume, but merely for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each individual producer in the means of subsistence is determined by his labour time. Labour time would, in that case, play a double part. Its apportionment in accordance with a definite social plan maintains the proper proportion between the different kinds of work to be done and the various wants of the community. On the other hand, it also serves as a measure of the portion of the common labour borne by each individual, and of his share in the part of the total product destined for individual consumption. The social relations of the individual producers, with regard both to their labour and to its products, are in this case perfectly simple and intelligible, and that with regard not only to production but also to distribution.[…]The life-process of society, which is based on the process of material production, does not strip off its mystical veil until it is treated as production by freely associated men, and is consciously regulated by them in accordance with a settled plan. This, however, demands for society a certain material ground-work or set of conditions of existence which in their turn are the spontaneous product of a long and painful process of development.That, is what social production "freely associated men, and [it] is consciously regulated by them in accordance with a settled plan."
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_10_27.htmThis letter may be of interest. But the point is, Marx and Engels wrote the German ideology together (and after the philosophical manuscripts, 1846), so that chapter on Materialism does belong to them both.This seems apposite:https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1893/letters/93_07_14.htm
LBird wrote:So, who determines 'ability' and 'needs', YMS?Isolated individuals or social producers?How are these social products made?By ahistoric, asocial personal intuition, or by democratic discussion?Concrete individual human beings entering into a conscious association.
Of course there are limits to what democracy can do.Democracy cannot give the decision of votes to the minority, for starters.Democracy cannot decide the result opf a vote (if we have to vote on the truth, how can we know the result of a vote?).Democracy cannot give a blow job. It might be able to organise and authorise a blow job, but it really cannot give it.Democracy is not just voting, it is so much more than that.Now, as for social production: individuals have to come into definite relationships for there to be social production.Communism means from EACH (individual) according to the ability, to EACH (individual) acording to their needs.
LBird wrote:But probably of more political importance now, also to ask robbo and YMS to explain why the SPGB argues for the political concept of 'Limited democracy', and that an elite of 'Specialists' will predetermine the nature of those 'Limits'.We don't argue for that, and you have not provided a single quote from me to prove that I have ever said any such thing: I'm afraid you construct straw men (per your birfurcation fallacy) and wnyone who doesn't agree with you automatically supports elite domination.I'll note that my attempt to engage with you, and see if I was understanding your arguments correctly has been met with yet one more example of you withdrawing from debate, rather than seaking to cl;arify your ideas.
I missed the documentary about Assad's disappearances: obviously, he is wading his way through blood to stay in power, sadly, though, a lot of blood would need to be shed to be rid of him. Witness:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39383989
BBC wrote:A senior UN official in Iraq said she was stunned by accounts of "terrible loss of life", after claims that at least 200 people had been killed in an air strike by the US-led coalition.Iraq Body count lists:Mosul: 230 by coalition air strikes; 108 in booby-trapped houses; 3 by mortar shelling; 1 by rocket; 3 women executed; 1 by IED. That's for Thursday (probably includes the figures in the UN report). Note the BBC concentrates on the careful investigation by the US.Airwars appears to have some data:https://airwars.org/data/Worth looking at.
To recap Lbirds case:There is no objective reality (unsubstantiated major proposition – often backed up by dubious quotations from Marx, if not outrright misreadings, so an appeal to authority).The claim that there is an objective reality backs up existing elites (again, unsubstantiated, and disputed: for example, Trump subscribes, like Lbird, to the Authoritarian Theory of Truth. Trump lies, consciously and continuously, buit relies on his partisans to claim that any fact based rebuttal is in fact ideological opposition – to my mind, the denial of objective reality is in fact advantageous to a ruling elite, since there is nothing ti weigh their claims against).Lbird then backs this up with a number of fallacious argumentations: anyone who disputes his theory is objectively supporting the ruling class ideology, and necessarily defending elite rule (a kind of bifurcation fallacy, there are only two choices, Lbird's theory, or Engelsian materialism). This is then turned into an ad hominem attack on the individual putting the claim, backed up by application of snarl terms ("religious materialist" is clearly a provocation, possibly born of debating experience and an attempt to shoot the fox of being called religious themself).I could go on, but that is it in a nutshell.Questions Lbird needs to answer is: why, in their abstract democracy, do we need the existence of the working class to make socialism? Surely any majority of humans at any time in history could have voted for communism?How can we know the result of a vote, since knowledge has to be voted on, so what is this voting that is outside of democratic authority?Other than the voting, how does Lbird's idea of science differ from Lysenkoism, which demonstrably failed?Marx discussed inorganic nature, and humanities relationship with it, but if inorganic nature possesses no properties, can it be said to exist, and how can an entity with properties interact with it?I could go on, but that will do for now.
LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:It is a key feature of elitism to assume that your audience is at fault for not understanding your arguments, don't you think?But I do think that you understand my arguments, from your anti-democratic, Engelsian, Religious Materialist perspective.That's what I keep telling you, that you need to examine your own ideology.
I am a democratic communist, unlike you, Lbird. I'm not the one who has to twist Marx's words so that when he says "material" he means "social".
Lbird wrote:The reason you don't like my arguments, is that they are democratic, and you all seem to want 'specialists' to make our social production decisions for us.Go on, find one quote where I actually said that?
LBird wrote:So, YMS, read this post, and stop making up stories about what I'm supposedly writing.But you have just said I do understand what you are saying?
