Gnostic Marxist
- This topic has 446 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
‘per se’ is a political opinion, robbo.
Who determines ‘per se’, and how?
FFS. Whatever the case, you still misrepresented me since I explicitly said “who socially produces scientific theories has ZERO RELEVANCE” to the question of whether scientific theories should be democratically voted upon by the global population
Now deal with the arguments that demolish your crackpot non-Marxian idea about the need for scientific theories to be democratically voted upon by the global population.
If you can’t defend this idea or are unwilling to do so then at least have the grace to say so. Its pointless arguing with a brick wall
robbo203 wrote: “Whatever the case…”
But it’s your ‘case’ that I’m trying to get you to state, so you can’t avoid the reasonable question, as you have agreed it is, of whose ‘case’ it is, and how they/you/it produced it, by stating ‘whatever’.
You apparently want Marxists and democrats to simply and uncritically accept your ‘case’ as a ‘fact’, which just happens to be there, and doesn’t have any social producer.
You apparently want Marxists and democrats to simply and uncritically accept your ‘case’ as a ‘fact’, which just happens to be there, and doesn’t have any social producer.
More lies from our feathered friend…
I haven’t ever denied the reality of “social production” and “social producers”. All I have pointed out is the fact that something is a “social product” does not in itself make it a suitable candidate for being subject to a democratic vote. Democracy is crucial to socialism but there are limits to how far you can push or extend democratic decision-making – unless you want to seriously propose the global population should have a vote on what I have for breakfast (as I think BD mentioned, breakfast also being a “social product”, incidentally) in which case be my guest and go ahead and argue this point. Since you have already made yourself look utterly foolish there is little to be lost in plumbing new depths of folly.
It is not me, LBird, but you that wants us “Marxists and democrats” to uncritically accept your insane idea that the tens of thousands of scientific theories should each be subjected to a democratic vote of world’s population. It is totally impractical and serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Yet you have the nerve to call us “uncritical” when you have never made even the slightest attempt to defend this idea against criticism but have consistently sought to steer the line of argument away from , or around , this idea to deflect any criticism of it.
There is a limit to my patience. As I said, arguing with a brick wall becomes a bit pointless after a while – not to mention dull as dishwater. I had hoped in your case a chink of light might have opened up through a gap in that wall but sadly it seems to have been made up of solid brick throughout.
Neither follows Marx, who argued that ‘humanity’ is the active subject.
Rubbish.
============================
The aim of the Socialist is to get all to work harmoniously together on a basis of equality, as only by doing so can each develop himself to the fullest degree and enjoy the best of life—”Man is a social animal.” This idea is no non-material element, it is the heritage of the herd. Hence the assertion that “materialist Socialism” is “individualistic” is foolish and futile.Our opponent is blind to the practical facts of life and has lost his way in the maze of metaphysics and thus, instead of seeing the principle of the individualistic pursuit of profit and the robbery of the wage worker that faces him at every turn, has discovered somewhere in the by ways a vague abstraction, the “principle of the common good.” In its essence he has again got hold of the wrong end of the stick—society should exist for the benefit of man and not man for the benefit of society.
=============================Answer Robbo’s very simple straight forward question and point.
Now deal with the arguments that demolish your crackpot non-Marxian idea about the need for scientific theories to be democratically voted upon by the global population.
If you can’t defend this idea or are unwilling to do so then at least have the grace to say so. Its pointless arguing with a brick wall.
robbo203 wrote: “All I have pointed out is the fact that something is a “social product” does not in itself make it a suitable candidate for being subject to a democratic vote.” [my bold]
Did this ‘in itself’ tell you that, or are you keeping quiet about where you got the concept of ‘in-itself’ from?
Try looking at Kant, robbo.
Matthew Culbert wrote: “[LBird wrote:] Neither follows Marx, who argued that ‘humanity’ is the active subject.
Rubbish.”
I’m afraid it’s true, Matthew.
Who do you think labours in any mode of production? The fairies?
If Marx didn’t think humanity was the active subject, who (or what) did he think was?
Did this ‘in itself’ tell you that, or are you keeping quiet about where you got the concept of ‘in-itself’ from?
Groan. You never will get it, will you, LBird? Forever diverting the discussion away from any consideration of the practical limits of democratic decision making into Kantian philosophising. While that may be interesting in its right , it not what concerns me here. What me concerns here is only the former
Since you are clearly not interested in engaging with the question of what are the practical limits of democratic decision-making, I am not going to waste my time any longer trying in vain to engage you in constructive debate on this question. It is obviously pointless.
So cling on to your crackpot little idea about scientific theories being subject to a democratic vote by the global population, safe in the knowledge that no one is going to bother now to argue you out that idea. You have the complete right to be a batty as a moorhen if you so chose. I wash my hands of you…
Who do you think labours in any mode of production? The fairies?
If Marx didn’t think humanity was the active subject, who (or what) did he think was?
What are you on about? Stuff your active subject philosophical abstractions. All wealth comes from labour applied to nature. Now answer Robbo’s question where the heck did Marx say we would vote on scientific theories.
robbo203 wrote: “Since you are clearly not interested in engaging with the question of what are the practical limits of democratic decision-making, I am not going to waste my time any longer trying in vain to engage you in constructive debate on this question. It is obviously pointless.”
Surely it’s obvious by now, robbo, that I want to engage with the question of by who and how are the practical limits set, which will then lead to what they are.
You’re wasting your time trying to avoid that question. It is pointless. ‘Practical limits’ don’t just appear, without human involvement, as you seem to think.
Matthew Culbert wrote: “What are you on about? Stuff your active subject philosophical abstractions. All wealth comes from labour applied to nature.”
According to Marx’s philosophy, humans create their ‘nature’. It’s a ‘nature-for-us’. Our social product.
You appear to think ‘nature’ is just sitting there. Marx is a mystery to you, Matthew.
Surely it’s obvious by now, robbo, that I want to engage with the question of by who and how are the practical limits set, which will then lead to what they are
You have already been given this several times.
The people who make the revolution, will set determinations.
An advanced , post-capitalist society, run by us all, locally, regionally, globally, in democratic administration over resources and not a government over people.
It will be a market -free, money -free, production for use (not for sale), free access (not rationed access) commonly owned,(not private, corporate or state owned) revolutionary permanent break with the present capitalist one.
It has never existed anywhere.
It is not a ‘reformist’ nor a ‘statist’ version of capitalism which retains wage slavery in any form.
It will be the mature, politically conscious task of the immense majority to make it happen and not the minority vanguardist led actions of pseudo-revolutionaries.
“The organising tenet will be from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.”
You have not answered Robbo’s question.
(Below from An A to Z of Marxism #M )
The Socialist Party has made its own contributions to socialist theory whilst combating distortions of Marx’s ideas. In the light of all the above, the three main Marxist theories can be restated as:
The political theory of class struggle
The materialist theory of history
The labour theory of valueThese are tools of analysis, which have been further developed and modified by socialists, to explain how the working class are exploited under capitalism. Marxism is not only a method for criticising capitalism: it also points to the alternative. Marxism explains the importance to the working class of common ownership, democratic control and production solely for use and the means for establishing it.
And while it is desirable that socialist activists should acquaint themselves with the basics of Marxism, it is essential that a majority of workers have a working knowledge of how capitalism operates and what the change to socialism will mean.
What Marx never did was to permit his philosophical understanding to stand in the way of actual political activity. He left all that musings behind with Hegel and Feuerbach. He used his mind for other purposes and got his hands dirty with Party work.
LBird now uses Marx’s view on materialism as reason not to participate in any form of socialist action…It’s as if he’s waiting for Godot to come and vote on it.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “What Marx never did was to permit his philosophical understanding to stand in the way of actual political activity. He left all that musings behind with Hegel and Feuerbach. ”
This is another ‘materialist’ myth, alan.
Political theory (or, philosophy) is the basis of political activity.
Surely, even given your often-expressed hostility to ‘philosophy’, you’ve heard of ‘theory and practice’, and Marx’s insistence of it?
‘Materialism’ pretends that it isn’t a ‘theory’, and is simply a ‘practice’. And then, after the ‘actual activity’, supposedly the ‘theory’ emerges.
Once again, alan, you should realise that, whilst you assume that you have no ‘philosophy’, the one that you do actually have remains, for you, unconscious and unexamined.
alanjjohnstone wrote: “LBird now uses Marx’s view on materialism as reason not to participate in any form of socialist action…”
Well, given that there isn’t any ‘socialist action’ without ‘socialist theory’, the refusal of the SPGB membership here to discuss ‘socialist theory’ can only mean that they are not participating in any ‘socialist action’, so it seems that I’m the only one even trying to build a socialist theory and practice based upon Marx’s philosophical insights.
The starting point, alan, is to realise that Marx wasn’t a ‘materialist’, and said so. He said he was a ‘new materialist’ – and the ‘materialists’ simply ignore the prefix ‘new’, rather than discussing what was ‘new’ (and indeed, revolutionary) about this. They returned to pre-Marxian, 18th century, passive humanity, ‘materialism’, which worships ‘matter’ as ‘the active side’.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.