Andrew Kliman and Individual Appropriation by the Producers…

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

'Matter' is such a 'category'. Not 'eternal', but 'historical and transitory'. Not 'immortal, immutable, impassive', awaiting our 'discovery'.Those who think that 'the prime cause' is a 'category', like matter, which is 'distinct from [hu]man[ity]', rather than human activity, are not Marxists. They are the idealists. 'Materialists' are idealists. Engels didn't understand that, and neither do the 'materialists' who mistakenly follow Engels.Humans socially produce 'matter', and so can change it. 'Matter' is a social product.Even the bourgeoisie have changed from this 'category' to others. Thus, even the bourgeoisie are more advanced than 'materialists', who continue to live in the intellectual world of the 18th century, prior to Marx.

 What do  "you" mean by "materialist" and "idealist".? What is "matter" and what is "social" in "social product"    Who is "Engels" according to your "ideology"? What is "category"? And who are "Tim" and "Robbo" you speak to? . Are they "real" to "you"? Or are they "categories" and "constructs"? The  "truth" is "you" are "confused". 

[moderator1]

Mon, 25/09/2017 – 4:09pm#15LBird2nd warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’). Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message.   Forum members are free to discuss moderator’s decisions on a separate thread set up for that purpose but should not discuss moderator’s decisions on the main forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Marx, Letter to Annenkov, 1846, wrote:

…those who produce social relations in conformity with their material productivity also produce the ideas, categories, i.e. the ideal abstract expressions of those same social relations. Indeed, the categories are no more eternal than the relations they express. They are historical and transitory products. To Mr Proudhon, on the contrary, the prime cause consists in abstractions and categories. According to him it is these and not men which make history. The abstraction, the category regarded as such, i.e. as distinct from man and his material activity, is, of course, immortal, immutable, impassive.

http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1846/letters/46_12_28.html'Matter' is such a 'category'. Not 'eternal', but 'historical and transitory'. Not 'immortal, immutable, impassive', awaiting our 'discovery'.Those who think that 'the prime cause' is a 'category', like matter, which is 'distinct from [hu]man[ity]', rather than human activity, are not Marxists. They are the idealists. 'Materialists' are idealists. Engels didn't understand that, and neither do the 'materialists' who mistakenly follow Engels.Humans socially produce 'matter', and so can change it. 'Matter' is a social product.Even the bourgeoisie have changed from this 'category' to others. Thus, even the bourgeoisie are more advanced than 'materialists', who continue to live in the intellectual world of the 18th century, prior to Marx.

 It would have been more apprpriate and relevent  to this thread had LBird dealt with the argument I presented earlier that Marx's view of the nature of appopriation in a socialist society rests on certain assumptions that are individualistic.  If  LBird understand more about the sociology of Marx he would less quick off the mark at simply dismissing his opponents as "individualists" and constantly invoking Marx in support of his ideas. Marx was not a straightforward individualist thinker  but there are unquestionably elements of individualism in his thinking.  This whole argument that he presented that "the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" is quintessentially individualistic in orientation from start to finish Any realistic or plausible sociology requires, as a starting point an acknowledgment that human beings are real entitties and are what constitute society even if they are also constituted by society.  In other words any realistic or plausible sociology requires us to acknowledge that the relationship between the individual and society is a TWO way process  – not ONE way – whether we think that ONE way is from society to the individuals , meaning there is no such thing as individuals (LBirds ontology) or from the individual to society meaning there is no such thing as society  (Margaret Thatcher's ontology). Mrs M Thatcher and Mr L Bird are in an important sense, mirror images of each other 

[moderator1]

Mon, 25/09/2017 – 7:38pm#18 robbo2031st warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’). Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message.   Forum members are free to discuss moderator’s decisions on a separate thread set up for that purpose but should not discuss moderator’s decisions on the main forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

A thought occurred to me – why not contact Andrew to get a clarification and maybe to make a comment or two on this forum.  Does anyone have his contat details?

I have it in my contacts, not sure if they are up to date thoughakliman@xxxxxxAndrew_Kliman@xxxxx**IM Alan for details. Admin **

[PJShannon]

Quote:

I have it in my contacts, not sure if they are up to date though

You shouldn't put those up here. I am going to remove them. Just ask members to IM you for details.

[alanjjohnstone]

These e-mail addresses were already in the public domain, admin, but i am happy with your exercise of caution

[Anonymous]

I realise that.. My concern is with Spambots picking these up and flooding and as a consequence rendering them useless.

[Author]

Posts