[Young Master Smeet]

Ideology is not a thing, it is a process: you can't simply name an ideology (that's to confuse ideology with creed) necessarilly, it is the influence of power to distort social meanings and disguise conflicts.  Democratic communism is not an ideology, for example.  It is a set of ideas and a political proposition.

[Young Master Smeet]

One thing to note about Marx' works, is things like the philosophical manusrcipts and the Grundrisse were not written for publication, so, as a facty of material production, they are hard to take as deifinitive statements: the real value of the Manuscruipts, dioscovered so late, was they revealed Marx as a humanist, to the consternation to the Hard men 

Jordan wrote:

76. The expressions ‘realer Grund’, ‘wirkliche Basis’ or ‘realer Boden’ occur frequently in the writings of the young Marx to designate what later has become known as ‘the economic base’ or ‘basis’. See, e.g., Fruhschriften, pp. 368, 369. Engels took it over from Marx and used it synonymously with ‘the economic structure’, ‘the material foundation’, and similar expressions.

 Just a useful footnote on what Marx actually wrote per-translation: I'll just note that 'real' is rearing its head here. 

Jordan wrote:

In general, Marx could not have accepted an observable part of physical reality as the absolute primary factor of social action and relations, because in his view nature cannot function as a condition determining human consciousness unless it is first defined in sociocultural terms, that is, unless it is a socially and culturally mediated entity. Consequently, Marx could not and actually did not accept any explanation of social activity in any other but social terms. ‘Everything which sets men in motion’, wrote Engels, ‘must go through their minds.’[125] Marx emphasized this fact in The German Ideology to justify the view that not only circumstances make men, as the ‘old materialism’ maintained, but men also make circumstances, as the ‘new materialism’ asserted.

 This is uncontroversial, but it does explain Marx much better than Lbird does, as looking at socially mediated reality, this would be acceptible to most philosophers, from kant to Russell, so it's hardly Earth shattering.  All this means is Marx wasn't a Skinnerite. Man is a natural entity among others and does not hold a privileged position in the universe. Even when man struggles with and tries to secure his control over nature, he remains part of it. Jordan. 

Jordan wrote:

But the assumptions of naturalism may be conceived as implying materialism. In this case, the difference between naturalism and materialism disappears, and Marx’s naturalistic conception of history is reduced to a materialistic theory.

Jordan does emphasise that Marx saw humans as part of a natural system, not apart from the world, or even ruling over it, and per the above, this is materialism by another name (I would dispute reduced, but it suffices in it's current place). 

Jordan wrote:

While according to Marx, man’s practical activity creates an objective world in the indicated sense, objectification should not be conceived as a spiritual but as a natural act and, therefore, as an act of production rather than that of creation in the proper sense, that is, of bringing something into being ex nihilo. Consequently, man’s capacity of objectifying what gratifies his needs and provides him with enjoyment presupposes the ‘sensuous external world’. This external world is the material on which man’s labour becomes manifest, from which and by means of which external objects are produced.[46]

We've been over this before, but I want to emphasise the not ex-nihil thing again, a natural act, but, and I think I quote Marx describing the plant as the object of the Sun (and vice versa) objectification is a result of process and action.  Also, objectification is not the creation of substance, but the act of making the sensuous world into our objects for us.  A Thing, proper, is not an Object. 

Jordan wrote:

The world as known to man is a man-made world; it is the totality of ‘things for us’ and not of ‘things-in-themselves’. The only knowable is the world that appears in man’s experience, that is causally transformed by human action, divided into species and particulars, class members and classes, articulated into objects and their relations, into things with a definite form, arrangement, and structure, and cut out from the chaotic mass of the pre-existing world as it persists by itself. This humanized world is knowable because it is a world determined by man, the outcome, as Marx said in the first Thesis on Feuerbach, of ‘human sensuous activity’. As a natural being man shapes the environment according to his needs, and the needs determine the articulation of the world into separate things and their connections. External objects are, as it were, the objectified centres of resistance in the environment encountered by the human drives striving for the satisfaction of needs. If the needs were different, the world would look differently too, as it does to other animal species.

"As known to man" is an important qualification, we do not make the world itself, we produce our knowledge of the world, the things in it, centres of resistence which set limits on what we can create out of the "pre-existing world as it persists by itself" 

Quote:

=Jordan]Although sensuous objects are different from thought objects, they do not exist in the form of objects unless they are made such by human activity. Cognition is not simply a matter of discovering or disclosing some entities which exist independently of us. The subject participates in the determination of the objective nature and order of things and, in a certain sense, creates it in the act of continuous world-objectification (Vergegenstandlichung).

So not simply discovering implys (and presupposes) it is partly discovering/disclosing.  The subject only participates, and not in an absolute sense, but in a certain sense creates, in the sense of moulding order out of chaos, perhaps. 

Marx wrote:

the work of combustion of some substance used for the generation of heat. This work of combustion does not generate any heat, although it is a necessary element in the process of combustion. In order, e.g., to consume coal as fuel, I must combine it with oxygen, and for this purpose must transform it from the solid into the gaseous state (for in the carbonic acid gas, the result of the combustion, coal is in the gaseous state); consequently, I must bring about a physical change in the form of its existence or in its state of being. The separation of carbon molecules, which are united into a solid mass, and the splitting up of these molecules into their separate atoms must precede the new combination, and this requires a certain expenditure of energy which thus is not transformed into heat but taken from it.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch06.htm Just randomly ran across this the otehr day, note how Marx seems to accept there are Carbon atoms and energy exchanges, he doesn't qualify, call them so-called, or hedge with 'what elite scientists say'. 

Marx wrote:

Ruthlessness –the first condition of all criticism–is impossible in such company; besides which constant attention has to be paid to making things easily comprehensible, i.e., exposition for the ignorant. Imagine a journal of chemistry where the readers' ignorance of chemistry is constantly assumed as the fundamental presupposition.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/letters/77_07_18.htm Just including this again, Marx clearly thought specialist journals should talk to specialists and not to everyone.  Also, the implicit assumption is that Chemistry is a valid discipline. The point of much of the above, is it demonstrates Lbird's misreading: for Jordan there is a real world, with real consquences, which delimit the actions of the subject.  Marx' anthropological centredness is an interesting and useful way of examining science, and indeed subjecting the thought objects of science to historical criticism.  Our ideas have history, and adapt as our being in the world adapts, from the invention of telescopes, to needing to be able to plan railway timetables our abilities and needs shape the way we approach the world, but we cannot change it merely by willing it, but by living within the world, and working together in a conscious association of democratic producers.

[Young Master Smeet]

The author of a text is dead, it has no meaning beyond that which we give it, but, and our signifiers merely add to the text, they do not alter or change it, discourse is ongoing: there are language games we can play with the text, and some moves are valid/invalid.  You can say what you like about a text, butsome claims will have more basis than others.  You cannot claim that Marx wrote the Masque of Anarchy, or that the masque of anarchy is about the Boer War, you cannot say the original text was in Swedish.Yes, all readers/users of the text have their own deixis, spacially, temporally and socially.  The text is ours, but it has history, and language does not exist for each alone but socially, for others, so to say things about a text one must deal with the accreted social meaning of the text object.  We don't need to follow Baudrillard into ob jective irony, but can work with the bakhtin school to observe the polyphony of the text held within it.Ideology does not free us from meaning and history, it draws us within it.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

This is an ideological dispute, not a personal dispute.

No, it's a hermeneutic dispute, one that can be dealt with with evidence: what do the texts say?

[Young Master Smeet]

Lbird,My dispute is entirely  that I do not think that your reading of these texts accord's with a sensible Marxist perspective, that's the whole nub of the dispute.Saying, per Ollman, that Marx changes the meaning of some terms depending on context, demands an explanation of the meanings of terms based on evidence, it is not a licence to assume always and everywhere that Marx means what you want him to mean.

[Young Master Smeet]

But I have been discussing precisely those things (thanks for the demonstration of what I have just said, though, ad hominem, straw man, oh, and a side helping of moving the goal posts).You seem to remain unable to explain how Marx meant 'human' when he wrote 'Material', when I have cited Jordan, with quotations, that suggest his reading of Marx does not support yours, you declined to engage. 

[Young Master Smeet]

See, here's the problem.  Unlike Lbird, I assume other people are lookinmg on: it's not just about persuading your interlocutor (although, obviously, that is part of the goal), but about persuading people reading the debate, as well as honing and improving my own arguments to test them and make them more effective.Lbird demonstrates a number of argumentetive fallacies, I shall enumerate:Ad hominem: Lbird frequently uses accusations against their opponents, and turns the discussion into a debate about what others think, rather than defending their propositions.Straw man: often the accusations against others are straw man/aunt sally arguments, that Lbird can easily demolish: they make out, ad hominem, that their oppponents hold ridiculous views (even when that opponent has not expressed those views), and then go on to argue against that.No true Scotsman: a common one, usually in the actual form of No True Communist, but it extends out to Marx when, given evidence from Marx' texts that contradict Lbird's reading, Lbird maintain they don't mean what they say.Circular reasoning: often based on the ad hominems, Lbird will maintain that unless you already agree with their propositions, then you will not be able to understand and agree with them.Tu quoque: , Lbird is unable top provide any basis for evaluating their propositions: indeed, the claim that

Lbird wrote:

Workers who look to Democratic Communism have to decide for themselves what parts of Marx's works are in the interests and for the purposes of the revolutionary proletariat in the 21st century, taking into account the developments in physics since Einstein.

Suggests Lbird is not interested in any logical proof or structure, but is entirely motivated by belief, workers shhould want to believe.This sheds light on Lbird's continual charge of 'Religious Materialists', I've often thought that's the sound of an experienced debater getting their retaliation in first: how often has Lbird been accused of cultish and religious belief because they cannot, will not evidence their propositions?  This is on top of straight fporward refusing to answer the question, avoiding questions and returning like a stopped clock some while later to put propositions again as if they have never been challenged. The main issue is, does Lbird even understand the propositionsthey are putting forward.  They seem unaware of what Materialism is, or even idealism.  It's like someone has picked up a few stray ideas and attached themselves to them.I think any fair minded worker, especially any democratic communist worker, who seriously went through any thread we have ever had with Lbird, and dismiss them utterly for being any sort of useful advisor; any sort of authority on what Marx wrote or might have meant; any sort of resource for useful ideas for organising to achieve communism; as a useful interlocutor on which to test ideas; as any sort of pedagog; or any sort of assest to the intellectual armory of the workers movement.Lbird doesn't debate, declines to defend their propositions, to explain their propositions or to even try and help their fellow nworekers understand what they are trying to say.

[Young Master Smeet]

No, no, no.  I'm not asking you to prove what Marx' views were, I'm specifically asking about Marx meaning 'human' when he writes 'material'  that is a very specific claimk you have made, and one you should be able to prove.I strongly suspect:

Quote:

Lbird]The problem is, Marx's arguments can never be proven to those who disagree with Marx's views (based on his beliefs, assumptions, politics and epistemology).

Marx would disagree heartily with such a statement, else why would he bother writing at all, if people who disagree will never agree nor have statements proven.  That is the path to hermetically sealed cultishness.Lets not forget that you too want to separate society into two parts, the majority elite who decide what reality is and the minority who are removed from controlling reality at all, your elitist ideas are contrary to social production and control.  Yours is the path to domination.But, again, I ask, where did Marx suggest that when he wrote 'material' he meant 'human', or, lets relax the demand a little, can you provide a pssage from which that is a reasonable extrapolation, or are you Humpty-Lbird, and Marx means whatever you believe him to mean?  Wouldn't it just be easier to abandon Marx, and say, 'This is what I think' or to state, as I do, 'this is just my reading of Marx?'  You know, have a sense of responsibility?

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

I've constantly provided evidence from Marx's works, which are entirely about social production, not matter.

But you've never presented evidence that where he said 'matter' he meant human: which is why when I post quotes from Marx that suggest he did believe in the existence of matter, you seem to discount them (because they would seem to rebut your reading).  Now, if Marx did mean 'human' when he wrote 'matter' there would have to be some textual evidence of this, otherwise you're just reading sideways to justify your reading.You see, whenever I read Marx, and find evidence contrary to your views, you retreat into the sealed circle that only people who agree with you already can understand you.  Anyone who doesn't understand you doesn't agree with you, and it's their ideology, not your argumentetive methods (or your readings) that are at fault.To be clear: you have never proven, nor even attempted to prove, that where Marx wrote material, he meant human.  A simple account of why Marx might use words in a different meaning (for instance, if I was discussing Georges Bataille, I wold explain what homogenous and hetrogenous mean in his works, because he does use, erm, heterodox connotations for those words, and I would be able to back up that reading with textual evidence).

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

YMS wrote:

Lbird wrote:

By 'material', Marx means 'human', as opposed to 'ideal' meaning 'divine'.So, by 'material production', Marx means 'social production'.

You're going to have to provide textual proof of those claims: you've made them before, but if, humpty style, Marx says what you want him to say, thios conversation is pointless.

I've provided evidence many times, YMS, but the Religious Materialists, like you, won't read it.

You've never provided evidence that where Marx wrote 'Material' he meant human.And you see, I make out that Marx was a pretty clear writer, you say he was obstruse, and when he says something clear that you don't like, you maintain, humpty-dumpty style, that he meant something else.  Workers looking at how to use Marx' works would be wise to take that into consideration when weighing your argument.  You could also help them weigh their argument if you could suggest to them what would help invalidate Marx' theories on science and epistemology.  If I saw rising wages and a rising share of the social product going to capital, I'd know that Marx' theory of exploitation had been invalidated, and would say so: would you?

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

By 'material', Marx means 'human', as opposed to 'ideal' meaning 'divine'.So, by 'material production', Marx means 'social production'.

You're going to have to provcide textual proof of those claims: you've made them before, but if, humpty style, Marx says what you want him to say, thios conversation is pointless.Further, can I ask: what wopuld it take to dirsprove Marx?  What would demonstrate that he was wrong on that subject?

[Young Master Smeet]

Short of time:

Marx wrote:

Whatever may be the social form of the products-supply, its preservation requires outlays for buildings, vessels, etc., which are facilities for storing the product; also for means of production and labour, more or less of which must be expended, according to the nature of the product, in order to combat injurious influences. The more concentrated socially the supply is, the smaller relatively are the costs. These outlays always constitute a part of the social labour, in either materialised or living form — hence in the capitalist form outlays of capital — which do not enter into the formation of the product itself and thus are deductions from the product. They are necessary, these unproductive expenses of social wealth. They are the costs of preserving the social product regardless of whether its existence as an element of the commodity-supply stems merely from the social form of production, hence from the commodity-form and its necessary change of form, or whether we regard the commodity-supply merely as a special form of the supply of products, which is common to all societies, although not in the form of a commodity-supply that form of products-supply belonging in the process of circulation.

 https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch06.htmCabinet Ministers, like directors of Companies can be said to be pensioners of the capitalist class, and to be getting a share of the surplus value: but I think that isn't their ministerial salary, but the deferred payment in form of directorships and speaking tours.  If the ministers had, as in the SU, control of productive wealth, then they would be taking a share of surplus value.

[Young Master Smeet]

Well, it's significant and useful to be informed of how the levers of state are being applied.  The potential to actually destroy the Labour party is something we need to be aware of, because of the opportunity it represents.

[Young Master Smeet]

"Rhetoric. A figure of speech in which a pair of opposed or markedly contradictory terms are placed in conjunction for emphasis."  Such as a bitter sweet.  The original meaning has slipped in common usage.Elite is just old French for elect, the choice (or chosen) part of a society or group, the majority can be chosen,

[Young Master Smeet]

Unless she has enough personal capital to live on and not work~: yes.  The main point is that tehe is a clear pension now, as Private Eye has demonstrated in its coverage of erevolving doors: top flight politicians are guaranteed consultancies, directorships and the speaking circuit, ultimately, those are forms of channelling surplus value to loyal servants.

[Author]

Posts