[Young Master Smeet]

Nope, nothing in the definition of elite says it has to be a minority, it is a chosen section of society (ooh, and the point of oxymorons is they make sense, you're trying for a contradiction in terms).

[Young Master Smeet]

OK, inorganic nature is not matter, but it is something outside our social production, isn't it? (Although, just to quote Marx: "which makes all nature his inorganic body – both inasmuch as nature is (1) his direct means of life, and (2) the material, the object, and the instrument of his life activity." does seem to suggest inorganic nature is material, i.e. composed of matter?  Got a counter quote? [https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htmI've already noted, you haven't proven that the existence of matter creates an elite or the need for an elite, while your voting on truth does create an elite majority who decide what the truth is, compared to the minority who are denied.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

and argue for 'matter' which is outside of our social production.

You mean like Marx did, calling it inorganic nature?If humans are divine creators, doesn't that make humans absolute ultimate a finality?

[Young Master Smeet]

Politicians who receive a salary are salaried workers like any other: it's just they have a slightly complex interview process.  If, after they cease to be an MP, they don't have property to fall back on, they will have to get another job.

[Young Master Smeet]

Tim,

Jordan wrote:

It is a fateful error to set society and culture over against nature

Sound like anyone we know?Likewise

Jordan wrote:

For man, who is part of nature, to doubt the existence of the external world or to consider it as in need of proof is to doubt his own existence

Kind of what I just asked, really…

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

Marx regarded humans as divine creators.

JUst one question: where do humans come from, if the world is their divine creation?

[Young Master Smeet]

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm

Quote:

Bakunin wrote:

Certainly, with your permission, of former workers, who however, as soon as they have become representatives or governors of the people, cease to be workers…

Marx wrote:

As little as a factory owner today ceases to be a capitalist if he becomes a municipal councillor…

[Young Master Smeet]

I reserve the right to change my mind, Hebridean Exophagism is sooooo last year.This article refuted its basic premisesBut what I think has been irrelevent since they discovered all Yorkshiremen are liars.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

If you don't share his political and ideological beliefs, then your 'understanding' will be built upon other political and ideological beliefs.

So only people who agree with you already can understand you?

LBird wrote:

But you are hiding yours.

I revealed it earlier in this thread, I am a Marxist humanist who believes in the self emancipation of the proletariate via the the revolutionary democratic conquest of political power, the end of alienation, and abolition of the wages system, and the common and democratic ownership and control of the means and instruments of producing and distribuing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

Produce and create are pure synonyms for Marx.

Citation needed.  A quick scan of Marx's works found create often related to value, but produce relating to needs.  For example: "In the process of production, human beings work not only upon nature, but also upon one another."  A turn of phrase like "But these functions neither create value, nor produce surplus-value.  Also "The difficulty as concerns mercantile wage-workers is by no means to explain how they produce direct profits for their employer without creating any direct surplus-value (of which profit is but a transmuted form)." Is interesting, value is created by humans (capital does produce surplus value) https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch17.htm seems to indicate a synonym relationshipLooking for "creator" gets: "So far therefore as labour is a creator of use value, is useful labour, it is a necessary condition, independent of all forms of society, for the existence of the human race; it is an eternal nature-imposed necessity, without which there can be no material exchanges between man and Nature, and therefore no life." which I will leave to stand on its own as a comment on your reading of Marx.

Quote:

So, I don't need to 'add meaning' – that's what you want to do. Your 'clarification' is an attempt to 'redefine' – why not admit it? You simply want to redefine Marx's revolutionary, democratic epistemology, into a conservative, elite epistemology, and then claim that 'Marx was wrong' and 'LBird is wrong'.

Our whole dispute is a disagreement aboiut reading Marx, you say he said one thing, I say he said something else, I'd liek to know, given we've both read the same words, how we got here.

Quote:

It's not 'ad hominem' to say you 'seem to' have cloth ears, because I keep giving explanations, and you redefine or rephrase them into your terms. I think that I'm being more than reasonable, with someone who doesn't read what I write (or Marx or Jordan), but keeps bleating about 'personal attacks'.

It is ad hominem, a clear thinker does not interpolate the abilities of intentions of their audience, but merely seeks to refine the rguments in the lights of questions.

[Young Master Smeet]

Produce and create are not pure synonyms, especially given the divine connotations of create, since you don't want to add meaning by differentiating them, I need to ask questions for further clarification.Per my Edinburgh/Carlisle example, if throughout the conversation we're both just saying "town" then the confusion is not easy to spot.Asking questions, and re-phrasing your comments is an attempt to tease out the unclarity, especially when you seem to resort to ad hominem whenever you're challenged on any weak points in your argument.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

I agree, and Marx often doesn't provide it. But you are the one changing/substituting what I write, for what you wish that I'd written.

Or maybe what you wrote isn't as clear asyou think. 

Lbird wrote:

Here we go, again. In this context, 'produce' and 'create' are synonyms for human activity. If you wish to reserve one for 'god and nothing' (ie. 'creation'), that's your choice, not mine. If you wish to use 'transform' to alter the meaning of 'produce/create', then you're 'adding' to confuse. If you simply mean 'produce/create', why add another term?

Produce:  To make (an object) by physical labour; (now spec.) to make or manufacture (a product or commodity) from components or raw materials.Create: a. trans. To bring into being, cause to exist; esp. to produce where nothing was before.The point, at any rate, to be clear, is that we do not produce ex nihil: do we agree on tha, we produce our objects from the stuff of the world?  I think this is a key point, and requires clarity.I am suggesting transmorm as a better word than either, becuase it clarifies this particular point.

Lbird wrote:

You should take note of this.My purpose to clarify an epistemology suitable for the revolutionary proletariat, as a part of its class consciousness, to help build a democratic politics, including in the social production of scientific knowledge and truth.If you have a different purpose (individual knowledge, personal clarification, defence of bourgeois science, piss-taking, whatever), you should declare it, because it will impact upon your understanding of Marx.

My purpose is to debate, clarify and understand what you are trying to say.

[Young Master Smeet]

Lbird, I'm trying to understand you.  Marx was very precise in his termininology (this is what makes his works difficult to read sometimes)  Precision is important in debate.  You can call it word play if you like, but it is quite galling after an hours debate about the state of traffic to find you were discussing Edinburgh when I was talking about Carlisle.I note your quiet acceptance of 'produce' rather than create.  Can you now add transform to the mix?

[Young Master Smeet]

I didn't ask what Marx says (nor imply anything about what Marx says) I asked a simple question, for you and your understanding alone: is it possible to enter into a relationship with nothing?

[Young Master Smeet]

Actually, scratch that: let's try this:What is a relationship?

[Author]

Posts