Marx, and the myth of his ‘Materialism’
- This topic has 305 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
rodshaw wrote:There is no way that more than a handful of people, with specialised training, a certain aptitude, and the time, could do the maths and go through all the experiments needed to arrive at conclusions like the ones above. The rest of us can either accept it or look on sceptically when we’re told about it. Or not give a shit, as may be. That is, if we know about it at all. There are people in all four camps. I can’t imagine it being different in a socialist society.
[my bold]What you've said here, rodshaw, is an ideological viewpoint, and moreover one that I don't share.Indeed, given those assumptions, I don't think that a democratic socialist society is even possible.What version of 'socialism' do you base your views upon? To me, and I'm not accusing you, the above quote would fit just as well with a Leninist society. That is, a few active, whilst the majority are passive.
LBird wrote:Again, YMS, this is where we disagree.For Marx, 'the object' is created by humanity from human theory and practice: so 'the object' can't 'delimit'. That would make inorganic nature the active side, as the materialists argue.Let's take this slowly. You agree with Marx that there is 'inorganic nature' (lets stick with his terminology). This exists/occurs/originates beyond/outside/before human consciousness and labour. Do you agree with that proposition?Now, assuming this 'inorganic nature' has varied qualities, i.e. different parts of inorganic nature have different capabilities, that means that with part A you can do things your cannot do with part B, when you apply human labour.That is not active, it can do nothing (lets us suppose for now) without human labour, but you cannot turn a pigs ear into a silk purse, no matter (pardon me) how much labour you apply. That is how inorganic nature sets limits on the infinite capacity of abstract labour. Yes?
LBird wrote:It's funny, y'know, those infected with bourgeois ideology always pretend to be 'practical men', just interested in the 'practice' of any activity, and always keen to get down to 'the nitty gritty' of the subject, of what an isolated genius individual can do. But that is not our proletarian method, is it? We are keenly aware of the socio-historical nature of the production of any 'concept', including 'string theory'.OK, so ..er.. String Theory is a Petty Bourgeois deviation from Proletarian Truth and those who espouse it, come the glorious revolution, should be sent to the Gulags. Just so I can get the case watertight in readiness for when we hold our revolutionary tribunals to indict those Running Dogs of Capitalism – the Scientists – can you just go over the argument again, Comrade. Im still not quite sure how the class structure of capitalism influences ,or is reflected in, the theoretical contents of String theory. You know how slippery these Bourgeois Snakes – the lawyers – can be. They will be arguing on behalf of their clients at the trubunals that our arguments are crudely determinist, that not all values are class values, and that because String theory was developed within a socio-historical context does not necessarily mean that it takes on the colour and character of that context.We must be alert to these cunning arguments , Comrade, that will no doubt be raised by the Forces of Reaction and Counter Revolution. You never know – next they will be arguing that if we are saying String Theory is a Petty Bourgeois deviation that reflects the character of capitalist society, then the same must apply to all science developed under capitalism and we would thus be logically bound to reject all science developed under capitalism. That kinda worries me, ya know,Comrade. How do you think we should respond to these Capitalist Lickspittle? Help me out here…
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:Again, YMS, this is where we disagree.For Marx, 'the object' is created by humanity from human theory and practice: so 'the object' can't 'delimit'. That would make inorganic nature the active side, as the materialists argue.Let's take this slowly. You agree with Marx that there is 'inorganic nature' (lets stick with his terminology). This exists/occurs/originates beyond/outside/before human consciousness and labour. Do you agree with that proposition?Now, assuming this 'inorganic nature' has varied qualities, i.e. different parts of inorganic nature have different capabilities, that means that with part A you can do things your cannot do with part B, when you apply human labour.That is not active, it can do nothing (lets us suppose for now) without human labour, but you cannot turn a pigs ear into a silk purse, no matter (pardon me) how much labour you apply. That is how inorganic nature sets limits on the infinite capacity of abstract labour. Yes?
You're fishing in deep philosophical waters, now, YMS!I think you're confusing 'inorganic' with 'organic', and I'll try to explain what I mean.Marx, me, you (and most socialists, I think) agree that 'inorganic nature' exists external to 'consciousness'.But, your second statement makes the mistake of saying 'assuming this 'inorganic nature'. Now, if Marx is correct, 'assumptions' sit in 'consciousness', not in 'inorganic nature', and so any 'assumption' applied to 'inorganic nature' produces 'organic nature'. That is, the 'qualities' of 'inorganic nature' are a product of the relationship between 'consciousness and inorganic nature'. So, 'qualities' are 'relational', not 'fixed out there in inorganic nature'. That's why science produces a variable 'truth' which has socio-historical bases, and so we can have a historical and social class based method of science, whilst classes continue to exist, and show when 'truths' appeared in time (and where some 'scientific truths' have since disappeared, again).We can discuss this with some examples, if comrades wish to explore this further.On your jokey aside that 'we can't turn a pig's ear into a silk purse', the truth seems to be, that with the better understanding that we create through our social theory and practice through time, that we soon will be able to!We know how to turn base metal into gold, after all, so, with theory and practice, the "pig's ear to silk purse transformation" seems to be coming into our reach! Isn't the ultimate "pig's ear into silk purse" process, the active transformation by us of capitalism into socialism?
Ah well, robbo…It was going so well, but now it appears you were deceiving us about your 'democratic communism', and have reverted to bourgeois science, and the myth that 'string theory' is nothing to do with social production.It's a shame, because I actually thought we were making progress.
LBird wrote:Marx, me, you (and most socialists, I think) agree that 'inorganic nature' exists external to 'consciousness'.Yay, yay, yay!
LBird wrote:But, your second statement makes the mistake of saying 'assuming this 'inorganic nature'.Then I shall correct my mistake. I will assert that 'inorganic nature' has varying qualities.
LBird wrote:That is, the 'qualities' of 'inorganic nature' are a product of the relationship between 'consciousness and inorganic nature'. So, 'qualities' are 'relational', not 'fixed out there in inorganic nature'. That's why science produces a variable 'truth' which has socio-historical bases, and so we can have a historical and social class based method of science, whilst classes continue to exist, and show when 'truths' appeared in time (and where some 'scientific truths' have since disappeared, again).The relationship is between two entities (inorganic nature and human labour), both have varying qualities. They must both bring something to the party, else one of them doesn't exist.
LBird wrote:On your jokey aside that 'we can't turn a pig's ear into a silk purse', the truth seems to be, that with the better understanding that we create through our social theory and practice through time, that we soon will be able to!Even if we could, it would require different processes and methods to making a silk purse out of silk.
LBird wrote:Ah well, robbo…It was going so well, but now it appears you were deceiving us about your 'democratic communism', and have reverted to bourgeois science, and the myth that 'string theory' is nothing to do with social production.When did I ever say or suggest " 'string theory' is nothing to do with social production? What I was trying to convey to you through my feeble attempt at satire is that there is nothing in string theory itself that warrants the suggestion that it is a "bourgeois" concept, that somehow reflects the capitalist relations of production – even if the theory itself was developed under the socio-historical conditions of capitalism. If you think otherwise then prove it. Show me how the internal structure and logic of the theory itself corresponds to a capitalist dynamic and reflects the class relations of capitalism. You cant and you know itYou are confusing two quite different things but then you are pretty confused on a lot of things
robbo203 wrote:What I was trying to convey to you through my feeble attempt at satire is that there is nothing in string theory itself that warrants the suggestion that it is a "bourgeois" concept, that somehow reflects the capitalist relations of production…[my bold]OK, robbo, benefit of the doubt and all that, and I'll assume once more that you really do want to understand Marx.Your statement "there is nothing…that warrants" is a pre-existing assumption made prior to looking at 'string theory'.It's an acceptable assumption, though one I don't share because of ideological reasons (I'm Democratic Communist, heavily influenced by Marx).All I keep asking is: what ideology makes this assumption that you state? You seem to think either that you've thought this up all alone, as an individual genius, or that Marx's claims are wrong, and 'string theory' is not the product of a class.I don't mind if you go for the 'I'm a genius' claim, or the 'Marx was a ignorant knobhead' claim, or indeed some other explanation of your assumption, I'm just saying that, from my ideological perspective about 'physics', the position of the observer has to be exposed. In fact, that's what Einstein claimed, too, so Marx seemed to be onto something, nearly 60 earlier.Over you, robbo…[one tip: keep the comedy in the bag until we establish comradely working relations, otherwise it's likely to go unappreciated: there's nothing wrong with 'satire', whether 'feeble' or not]
YMS wrote:I will assert that 'inorganic nature' has varying qualities.[my bold]That's fine, as your assertion, YMS, but is nothing to do with Marx.Since I'm influenced by Marx, my view of physics will then be different to yours, because I don't 'assert' the same thing. It'd be nice if you would say just where you got this 'assertion' from, but I suppose my request will pass ignored, as before.
YMS wrote:The relationship is between two entities (inorganic nature and human labour), both have varying qualities. They must both bring something to the party, else one of them doesn't exist.No, you are ignoring relational products and looking at individual properties.'Qualities' are produced, by the relationship between 'consciousness and being', and the 'active side' (as Marx puts it) is human social theory and practice, not 'inorganic nature' (or, as Marx puts it elsewhere the 'material substratum').Inorganic nature/material substratum is the 'stuff' we change for our purposes – we don't merely 'interpret' 'inorganic qualities', that would be passive, as Marx warns when criticising materialism, which argues just that.
YMS wrote:Even if we could, it would require different processes and methods to making a silk purse out of silk.Yes, of course it would, but it's nice to see that you accept the possibility, now, of 'making a silk purse out of a pig's ear', by 'different processes and methods'.We're getting somewhere.
LBird wrote:OK, robbo, benefit of the doubt and all that, and I'll assume once more that you really do want to understand Marx.blah blah blah …LBird cut the crap and answer directly the challenge I posed:Show me how the internal structure and logic of the theory itself corresponds to a capitalist dynamic and reflects the class relations of capitalismYou are beginning to sound like a capitalist politician being interviewed on telly in your capacity to evade straightforward questions
LBird wrote:No, you are ignoring relational products and looking at individual properties.'Qualities' are produced, by the relationship between 'consciousness and being', and the 'active side' (as Marx puts it) is human social theory and practice, not 'inorganic nature' (or, as Marx puts it elsewhere the 'material substratum').Your mean like
Chuck wrote:The use values, coat, linen, &c., i.e., the bodies of commodities, are combinations of two elements – matter and labour. If we take away the useful labour expended upon them, a material substratum is always left, which is furnished by Nature without the help of man. The latter can work only as Nature does, that is by changing the form of matter. Nay more, in this work of changing the form he is constantly helped by natural forces. We see, then, that labour is not the only source of material wealth, of use values produced by labour. As William Petty puts it, labour is its father and the earth its mother.The connected footnote is interesting:
Pietro Verri wrote:“All the phenomena of the universe, whether produced by the hand of man or through the universal laws of physics, are not actual new creations, but merely a modification of matter. Joining together and separating are the only elements which the human mind always finds on analysing the concept of reproduction.’ and it is just the same with the reproduction of value” (value in use, although Verri in this passage of his controversy with the Physiocrats is not himself quite certain of the kind of value he is speaking of) “and of wealth, when earth, air and water in the fields are transformed into corn, or when the hand of man transforms the secretions of an insect into silk, or some pieces of metal are arranged to make the mechanism of a watch.”I am being logical here. If the material substratum were undifferentiated, a kind of cosmic clay without variance anywhere, then it would be as if it did not exist (we could simply Ockham it away), and human labour would be the only substance (and be left with a world in which by will alone things happen).
LBird wrote:Inorganic nature/material substratum is the 'stuff' we change for our purposes – we don't merely 'interpret' 'inorganic qualities', that would be passive, as Marx warns when criticising materialism, which argues just that.Again, you're misunderstanding. We don't have to 'iterpret', but, merely as the hurdle on a race track (which is entirely passive) your activity must relate, and change, in contact with nature. Yes, we could run straight into a hurdle, or we can jump it (in different ways), but it's character of hurdle would still limit they way in which we could traverse it.
robbo203 wrote:LBird wrote:OK, robbo, benefit of the doubt and all that, and I'll assume once more that you really do want to understand Marx.blah blah blah …LBird cut the crap and answer directly the challenge I posed:Show me how the internal structure and logic of the theory itself corresponds to a capitalist dynamic and reflects the class relations of capitalismYou are beginning to sound like a capitalist politician being interviewed on telly in your capacity to evade straightforward questions
Throwing childish tantrums, because you neither understand Marx, nor want your beloved bourgeois ideology exposing, is no answer to ignorance, robbo.
YMS wrote:…it's character of hurdle would still limit they way in which we could traverse it.No, it's the character of the hurdle in relation to a human that would limit, an individual runner, for example.But, if we were much smaller, say, the size of a neutrino, would could pass through the hurdle, or if we constructed a projectile the size of a neutrino, we could pass something through a hurdle.So, the 'limits' are of a relational kind, between 'being and consciousness', not a 'quality' of 'inorganic nature'.Once more, YMS, you're assigning the 'active side' (eg., the ability to limit) to 'inorganic nature'.This would make humans passive. Funnily enough, you seem to be, by pure coincidence no doubt, arguing what the bourgeoisie argue, that we are passive in the face of 'material facts', like property.Their physics does this too, the separation of 'being and consciousness', which is why they are having so many theoretical problems at the moment.But, being bourgeois physicists, they can't unite property (material being) with democracy (ideas in consciousness), because it'll fuck up their society.What was it Marx said about the relations of production inhibiting the development of the forces of production? Bourgeois physics seems to be at such an impasse. Let's hope communist workers can take advantage, eh?
Here are a couple of quotes found on WS Facebook site. Think may be of interest. I had intended to use the first quote some time ago on this thread but found that I could not agree with it. Society“Society is made up of individuals with conflicting ideas born out of their particular circumstances and associations. It is like soup made up of carrots, potatoes, and turnips with conflicting tastes. Each ingredient is represented in the soup, but the final taste is not like any of the individual elements, although they are all part of it.” SPGB, Historical Materialism, p.11 Society "does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand." – Marx
LBird wrote:No, it's the character of the hurdle in relation to a human that would limit, an individual runner, for example.But, if we were much smaller, say, the size of a neutrino, would could pass through the hurdle, or if we constructed a projectile the size of a neutrino, we could pass something through a hurdle.So, the 'limits' are of a relational kind, between 'being and consciousness', not a 'quality' of 'inorganic nature'.Shit me sideways with a shitting fork. You've just said exactly what I said.
LBird wrote:Once more, YMS, you're assigning the 'active side' (eg., the ability to limit) to 'inorganic nature'.This would make humans passive. Funnily enough, you seem to be, by pure coincidence no doubt, arguing what the bourgeoisie argue, that we are passive in the face of 'material facts', like property.Equally, the limits of what we can do with labour also exist, so that is present on both sides, but I'd say that just lying there and being a hurdle is pretty passive, wouldn't you? Yes, we can change the way we approach the hurdle, and do different active things with it, but it stays in its form as hurdle, and there will be things we can't do to it. In a sense, it is merely a negation of our activity.Anyway, we agree, even if you are loathe to admit it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.