Marx, and the myth of his ‘Materialism’
- This topic has 305 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I think it ironic that LBird holds such a determinist and mechanical view of science as a mere 'reflection' of the mode of production.Yet even the materialist Engels had this to say about such a position, I believe later referred to as 'vulgar marxism'"Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it. We had to emphasise the main principle vis-à-vis our adversaries, who denied it, and we had not always the time, the place or the opportunity to give their due to the other elements involved in the interaction. But when it came to presenting a section of history, that is, to making a practical application, it was a different matter and there no error was permissible. Unfortunately, however, it happens only too often that people think they have fully understood a new theory and can apply it without more ado from the moment they have assimilated its main principles, and even those not always correctly. And I cannot exempt many of the more recent "Marxists" from this reproach, for the most amazing rubbish has been produced in this quarter, too…."Science is more than the simple will of a class but the a social historical product of the class struggle and LBird inadvertently admits this when he acknowledges:"And science is a part of this class battleground."
Thank you. Everyone please note that LBird’s authorised opinion is:
LBird, emphatically, wrote:LBird warns us that bourgeois scientists harbour ambitions to rule the world, even to construct Fourth Reich Mengele chambers of horror.Whew, am I pleased that that’s been settled to everyone’s satisfaction!I’d hate to be responsible for anyone getting the wrong impression of him.
LBird wrote:Materialism is essentially a bourgeois notion, suited to elites and minorities, and which can ignore change and democracy.That doesn't follow, an objective world is just as hostile to an elite as to a revolutionary class. An objective world is also amenable to collective examination and verification, whereas an idealist world is in fact highly amenable to any elite that can seize control of the means of communication, as the revolution against the aristocracy showed.
LBird wrote:Marx's philosophy was an amalgam of the creativity of idealism and the reality of human production, as any reading of his Theses on Feuerbach will show.Idealism isn't especially creative (no more nor less than materialism), especially not in the Hegelian variety, which emphasised the becoming of the mind of God. All idealism says is that the world is made of ideas, and there is no (meaningful) external world which we can apprehend.
LBird wrote:But the clinching argument is at heart a simple one: which is better suited to the purposes of the class conscious proletariat?A 'materialism' that stresses respect for the unelected elite, that argues that the 'material' determines our social thoughts, or an 'idealism-materialism' which provides a philosophical basis for democratic production.What is our class' purpose? 'Eternal Truth', 'Objective Knowledge'? Or 'A Better World', 'Democratic Communism'?What about a materialism that allows for collective open investigation of the world, and the practical development and refinement of means of examining and measuring the world? A materialism where proletarian scientists collaborate and freely distribute literature (twc was slightly incorrect, even your local library can get you access to rarified scientific papers, just not necessarily quickly).
twc wrote:Thank you. Everyone please note that LBird’s authorised opinion is:LBird, emphatically, wrote:LBird warns us that bourgeois scientists harbour ambitions to rule the world, even to construct Fourth Reich Mengele chambers of horror.Whew, am I pleased that that’s been settled to everyone’s satisfaction!I’d hate to be responsible for anyone getting the wrong impression of him.
A Marxist warns about the social power of bourgeois science – and that's a surprise?Oh, sorry, to an Engelsist, it is a shock.The materialists argue that 'science' is not class-based, but a politically-neutral elite activity which is there to benefit humanity.All I ask is, 'how's that going after 300 years?'No need for workers' intervention, according to twc. No need for socialism. No need for democratic production. Just trust to twc's benevolent, clever, trustworthy, special, elite.And this passes for a site that helps workers to understand and change their world? twc's party is a fraud.
twc wrote:Methinks we flushed out a crank!Yes, but you're unaware of just who the crank is!twc a Marxist? My arse!
LBird wrote:The materialists argue that 'science' is not class-based, but a politically-neutral elite activity which is there to benefit humanity.It is one thing to argue that science is not value free and I agree that it is not; it is another thing to argue that science is "class based". It seems a bit far fetched to say , for example , that theoretical physics has a class basis. How would theoretical physics be different in a classless society? Would String theory be dismissed as an expression of counter revolutionary bourgeois sentiment? We should be wary of such crude reductionism.Of course, theoretical physics is not developed within a vacuum, It is influenced by society and the mores of society which spring from the class basis of society. But saying this is not the same as saying that science itself is class based
In reference to the title of the thread.What does it matter whether Marx was a materialist or an idealist-materialist? I don't see how it would bring us any closer to a majority of the worlds workers realising the potential they hold to transform society into one fit for human habitation?
SocialistPunk wrote:What does it matter whether Marx was a materialist or an idealist-materialist?Surely the responses by the materialists, on this thread and others, and my continued saying that 'materialism is elitist' tells you 'why', SP?'Materialism' is not democratic. 'Materialism' alleges that its adherents 'know' the 'material world', outside of the considerations of the proletariat.If one thinks that democracy is an essential feature of socialism, then one can't be a materialist.This whole issue is at heart a political issue.The fact that no-one in the SPGB seems to realise this, is quite worrying.Science is about power.
robbo203 wrote:It is one thing to argue that science is not value free and I agree that it is not; it is another thing to argue that science is "class based".So, whose 'values' are involved in science, in a class-based society, if not those of classes?If you can see the applicability of the argument that 'science is not value free', robbo, you must have some idea whose 'values' are involved, and their social basis.
YMS wrote:What about a materialism that allows for collective open investigation of the world…YMS, are you actually unable to read?Idealism-MATERIALISM, Idealism-MATERIALISM, Idealism-MATERIALISM…Why do you materialists keep asking the same questions?
Going back to the beginning of this thread, you stated: "Marx used the term ‘material’ as a contrast with ‘ideal’, to contrast human creativity with divine creativity.". I don't think anyone on this forum or anyone in the SPGB would disagree with this. The fact that you choose to call this "idealism-materialism" as opposed to Marx's own descripition of this concept as "materialism" and then choose to bicker with people who choose to continue to describe this concept in the same way that Marx did is, in my humble opiion a littel strange. The fact that you then go on to imply that because tehre are some members who refuse to adhere to your nomenclature this in some way ties the SPGB to the almost religious doctrine faith that many Leninists have in "Dialectical Materialsm" or as it is known to those of the Leninist faith who have reached the upper echelons of mysticism "The dialectic"appears to me to indicate a number of things.1. You have not heard Gilbert McClatchie's excellent talk on Materialism and "the dialectic", which clearly and elequently states the SPGB's position on this (if it is still available it is well worth listening to, it was recorded int helate 60s or early 70s)2. You enjoy playing psychological games with people (I humbly suggest you might like to read Eric Berne's "transational Analysis in Psychotherapy)3. Some of the members of this forum take you more seriously than they should.4. And this is only a suggestion, perhaps you should get out more
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:It is one thing to argue that science is not value free and I agree that it is not; it is another thing to argue that science is "class based".So, whose 'values' are involved in science, in a class-based society, if not those of classes?If you can see the applicability of the argument that 'science is not value free', robbo, you must have some idea whose 'values' are involved, and their social basis.
Whilst I agree that science is not value free, it is conceivable – is it not? – that the values in question might not have much, if anything, to do with classes at all. What are the class values that inform string theory in theoretical physics for example.? More to the point how do they inform them? Show me how in this specific example. Is string theory bourgeois or proletarian? What ya reckon LBird?I think your approach is crudely reductionist and you are grasping at straws to be brutally honest
Thanks, Tim for your concern about my mental health, and I note your failure to actually engage with the issues.It's an old political trick.
robbo203 wrote:Whilst I agree that science is not value free, it is conceivable – is it not? – that the values in question might not have much, if anything, to do with classes at all.Yes, robbo, it is entirely conceivable that 'values' in society have little to do with classes.The ideology that holds that conception, though, is not Marxism.I freely admit my ideological presuppositions, robbo, but you appear to believe that 'scientific values' are little to do with the society that produces them.I can only say that you yourself have to answer that question. If you think 'values' are outside of the society in which they appear, then you name the ideology that claims this.I think 'values', whether scientific or otherwise, are produced by societies, and different societies produce different values.But then, I'm a historian, so I would say that. And I think that Marx's notion of 'modes of production' are central to understanding the social production of 'values', and their socio-historical specificity.I don't know how to give you a clearer answer about my own biases, and only you can reveal yours.I'm a Democratic Communist. Simple.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.