Members against Materialism

I'd be interested to know if he adopted Marx's 'theory and practice', jdw, as a replacement for Engels' 'materialism'. Many thinkers have suggested this need for a wariness of Engels, since Labriola in 1896.Do you have any links, that I could read up on Walsby's views?

By coincidence there's an article in the latest Socialist Standard (February) on Labriola written by one of our comrades from Italy and so with access to his writings in the original Italian including on "materialismo storico":http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2016/no-1338-february-2016/antonio-labriola-strict-marxist

Yeah, seems a pretty even-handed article.Labriola was especially correct on the need that:

But our argument seems to be about  the content of 'means': simply 'material' tools, or including scientific ideas and techniques.If 'means' includes Marx's 'theory and practice', then it's as much 'ideal' as it is 'material'.If 'means' are just 'tangible things', then the rocks are in charge of us.

But apparently you're keeping hold of your ball this time, eh, Vin?Or you could provide a link, unless it's now your personal property, and you're taking it home, so the naughty kid can't play with it, too.

Thanks for the link, comrade.I'll have a read later, busy for the next few hours.

Labriola will have meant by "means of production" what nearly everybody else did and still does, i.e. the materials that originally came from nature, the machines and tools used to fashion these into useful things, and the buildings where this takes place. Actually, our Object, drawn up in 1904, is even more precise by distinguishing between "means of production" and "instruments of production", i.e between materials from nature ("means") and the human-made machines and constructions ("instruments"):

Labriola,writing in 1896, also argued that this sort of definition distinguished socialism from state ownership or state capitalism ("State Socialism" as it was sometimes then called):

Whilst I would class 'social products' in the 'means of production' (as would Marx), if Labriola didn't, then he was wrong. That would be 'materialism', the ideology of Engels.But, you claim that the SPGB also includes 'instruments' within the 'democratic' purview.Does 'instruments' include maths and physics, are are you still employing Engels' 'materialism', which defines 'stuff' as 'material', rather than both social products, thoughts and stuff.We've had some initial discussions before on this issue of 'definition', when we spoke of Dietzgen: for him, as for Marx, the ideal and the material had equal weight.So, the problem once more is whether one is an Engelsian 'materialist' (who defines, like you, 'production' as about 'machines, tools, buildings, constructions', ie. 'tangible matter') or if one is a Marxist 'idealist-materialist' (who defines, like me, 'production' as  including social ideas as well as your list).I suggest that unless we define what 'means' include (either 'material' or 'ideal-material'), then we will talk at cross-purposes.I further suggest that Marx was discussing 'social production', not 'matter'. The latter is Engels' misunderstanding.'Social production' clearly includes 'ideas' (and so, maths and physics).