Marx, and the myth of his ‘Materialism’

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

He is a troll and the main function of a troll is to elicit an emotional response.

I wouldn't be that ungenerous or uncharitable, Vin. LBird has a viewpoint that he considers valid and is intent upon spreading his opinion….as we all do…Our forum welcomes debate and we have been very welcoming and tolerant to his posts although members who have more insight into Marian philosophy than myself have  been equally as dimissive in accepting his claims….(and the moderator resorting to sanctioning Lbird for the more than occasional rule-break.) At times, he has been accusatory,  too, alleging that the WSM  reflects  Leninism…although i get the impression that he would not classify us as really being Leninists if push came to shove. I'm sure he would depart if he genuinely believed that. Anyway, what harm is there in engaging in lively discussion and exchanging arguments. …It is not like the working class are agog and waiting in bated breath for the next instalment…neither we nor LBird has any audience on this thread…Its like one of those philosophical pub sketches so well portrayed by Dudley Moore and Peter Cook, Griff Ryhs Jones and Mel Smith, Ronnie Barker and Ronnie Corbitt…talking heads …. 

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

The point I was making was that your claim that the existence of an objective external world automatically leads to bourgeois ideology and minority rule is patently false…

But, it's only 'patently false' from your ideological perspective, YMS. That's why I'm keen for you to expose it, to others, and perhaps even to yourself.The claim that there is 'an objective external world' (ie. outside of a consciousness) is opposed by Marx's claim that we humans create our own world, by our social theory and practice upon inorganic nature. That produces organic nature, or nature-for-us, our own creation.So, if by 'objective world' you mean 'organic nature', then you are wrong, according to Marx's ideas. The 'objective world' is the one we create, not one 'out there' 'outside of human consciousness'.The bourgeoisie allege that the 'objective world' is the one we find or discover 'as it is'. Well, to echo Mandy, 'they would say that, wouldn't they?'. The 'external world' we live in, is the very one they have created, by their class-based theory and practice, and so to accept this 'external reality' as the basis of our practice is obviously a conservative method. That's why they are keen on the inductive method, which starts from 'what is', rather than criticism of 'what is' and the determination to change 'what is'.The only 'objective world' for humans is our 'socially-objective world'.So , to accept their class-based claim that the 'objective world' is not created by them, but simply 'is', removes the possibility of democratic creation anew, and thus maintains 'minority rule'.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

At times, he has been accusatory,  too, alleging that the WSM  reflects  Leninism…although i get the impression that he would not classify us as really being Leninists if push came to shove. I'm sure he would depart if he genuinely believed that.

Spot on, alan.I think that the SPGB clearly has some members and sympathisers who hold to a bourgeois philosophy, mainly through ignorance, rather than thought-out Leninism.But, nevertheless, these 'materialists' clearly espouse a politics that will lead to Leninism. That's also clear from what they themselves have argued on this very thread.The materialists have no time for talk of democracy or workers' power, or the social control of the means of production, which obviously includes the social activities of maths and physics.If the SPGB announces that 'materialism' is its core philosophy and all of its members must espouse this or resign, then I'll 'depart'.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

My particular gripe with your position is that you seem to think all values boil down to class values.

So, where do these 'values' come from, robbo, if not classes?

 Im astonished you even ask this question and it rather points to your simplistic, one dimensional and crudely reductionist cum mechanistic view of the world which has more in common with Leninism than Marxism, frankly. Values come from all kinds of sources.  Do you value your partner, friends and family, LBird? Do you value your environment – natural wilderness, for example? ,Are you concerned with the wellbeing of animals? Are you a fan of Arsenal or Chelsea and which one of these incarnates the material interests of the proletariat? (no dont answer that LOL) Anything you attach importance to, that means something to you, is a source of value in that subjective sense.And yes class identification is a source of value too.  But I have still to hear from you whether string theory in theoretical physics is a proletarian or bourgeois theory.  And why.Why do you not answer this question  LBird?  I want to be guided by your superior vanguardist knowlege – you did say you would "continue to help (me) with further answers" – as to whether or not  I should dismiss string theory as a petty bourgeois deviation from the Proletarian Truth.  Help me out here, man….Im in a state of turmoil over this vexed question

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

The claim that there is 'an objective external world' (ie. outside of a consciousness) is opposed by Marx's claim that we humans create our own world, by our social theory and practice upon inorganic nature. That produces organic nature, or nature-for-us, our own creation.So, if by 'objective world' you mean 'organic nature', then you are wrong, according to Marx's ideas. The 'objective world' is the one we create, not one 'out there' 'outside of human consciousness'.

German Ideology wrote:

The way in which men produce their means of subsistence depends first of all on the nature of the actual means of subsistence they find in existence and have to reproduce.

18th Brumaire wrote:

Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.

(even if that is a human created world, it is one that exists for me as ifobjective and given, since I cannot alter it by merely chosing, but only be workign upon what I find, and changing it).

Critique of the Gotha Program wrote:

Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power. the above phrase is to be found in all children's primers and is correct insofar as it is implied that labor is performed with the appurtenant subjects and instruments. But a socialist program cannot allow such bourgeois phrases to pass over in silence the conditions that lone give them meaning. And insofar as man from the beginning behaves toward nature, the primary source of all instruments and subjects of labor, as an owner, treats her as belonging to him, his labor becomes the source of use values, therefore also of wealth. The bourgeois have very good grounds for falsely ascribing supernatural creative power to labor; since precisely from the fact that labor depends on nature it follows that the man who possesses no other property than his labor power must, in all conditions of society and culture, be the slave of other men who have made themselves the owners of the material conditions of labor. He can only work with their permission, hence live only with their permission.

For anyone who dabbles in thinking, the only way in which this makes sense is if there is a nature exterior to human labour upon which we work.

Lbird wrote:

The bourgeoisie allege that the 'objective world' is the one we find or discover 'as it is'. Well, to echo Mandy, 'they would say that, wouldn't they?'. The 'external world' we live in, is the very one they have created, by their class-based theory and practice, and so to accept this 'external reality' as the basis of our practice is obviously a conservative method. That's why they are keen on the inductive method, which starts from 'what is', rather than criticism of 'what is' and the determination to change 'what is'.The only 'objective world' for humans is our 'socially-objective world'.So , to accept their class-based claim that the 'objective world' is not created by them, but simply 'is', removes the possibility of democratic creation anew, and thus maintains 'minority rule'.

Put simply, no, it doesn't, your conclusion doesn't follow.  To say that the world is as it is just as much allows us to change it.  An objective world means that we can expose ruling class lies and illusions.  Even if they have created it, they are creating the objective weapons they are putting in our hands, and they will find us objectively in control.  The point of Marxism is not how the world is, but acting to change it.  After all, the first step to curing a disease is finding where it is and how it works.The Bourgsoieie did not create yellow.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Values come from all kinds of sources.  Do you value your partner, friends and family, LBird? Do you value your environment – natural wilderness, for example? ,Are you concerned with the wellbeing of animals? Are you a fan of Arsenal or Chelsea and which one of these incarnates the material interests of the proletariat? (no dont answer that LOL) Anything you attach importance to, that means something to you, is a source of value in that subjective sense.

So, none of these are political issues?To me, they all are.Which ideology separates out the 'political' from the 'personal'; the 'individual' from the 'social'?Why won't you tell us your ideology? Once we know that, we can then talk about our constrasting views of physics.But we can't have you pretending to everyone that your views are 'objective', untainted by your living in this society. You're hiding something, robbo, as do the academic physicists, which we'll find out, once you reveal your ideological viewpoint.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…even if that is a human created world, it is one that exists for me as if objective and given, since I cannot alter it by merely chosing, but only be workign upon what I find, and changing it…

Hmmm…. I… me… sounds like individualist and empiricism, YMS. Why not openly declare your allegiance to this ideology?And the killer… 'as if'… what was it Marx said about science and the need to go beyond individual appearances?

YMS wrote:

For anyone who dabbles in thinking, the only way in which this makes sense is if there is a nature exterior to human labour upon which we work.

You're repeating what I've already said, again, YMS. Marx called this 'inorganic nature'.Please tell me which ideology you're using to understand 'nature'.

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

He is a troll and the main function of a troll is to elicit an emotional response.

I wouldn't be that ungenerous or uncharitable, Vin. LBird has a viewpoint that he considers valid and is intent upon spreading his opinion….as we all do…

 Perhaps you can tell me what that viewpoint is? And why it requires liesabout and abuse of other forum members? 

[Bijou Drains]

L Bird – I did not defame you, I questioned your motivation. Motivation, action, thought, etc. are, as you appear to understand, political. By definition if I am critical of your actions on a political forum then I am critical of your politics. With regards to what you have stated about Marx's view of materialism, I have stated on two occasions now, I do not see a substantial difference between your view, the view taken by the Party historically and my perception of the view taken by the majority of members of the SPGB with whom I have discussed this.I state again what I have done is question your motivation, I have not accused you, without a shred of evidence of wanting to throw people who disagree with me in an asylum. My actions were not defamatory as I did not state that this was your motive, only questioned it. You on the other hand made a clearly defamatory statement about me a named individual (i.e That given the opportunity I would have people who disagree with me placed in an asylum),on a publicly accesible forum. As a matter of fact I have spent much of my professional life assisting people to avoid or assisting them to get themselves out of institutional care. I have no issue with the use of bourgeois law, the thought of gaining damages from you and donating the proceeds to the SPGB is very appealing, however as stated a quick apology would suffice.I also find it interesting that your response to me, the alleged Stalinist, is to tell call me a wanker, state that I am dim and nasty and tell me to do one. I would suggest that your response has more in common with Stalinism than mine. Again this leads me to question your motivation on both a conscious and sub conscious level. You should read up on games theory, it really is quite fascinating

[alanjjohnstone]

Vin, you're one of those who have been debating and arguing with LBird for well over a year now, so if you don't know what you been opposing in all that time, then it makes all your contributions rather silly, doesn't it?I made my position clear from practically day one and have repeated it often …i have not a clue about this philosophical dispute..materialism, idealist-materialism…most of the book references that's been given over the months on the various threads are by authors i have not a scooby who they are, much less read and understood. And i'm so sure what is at stake is really that important to me…If being a socialist/communist means i have to comprehend and understand what you and LBird, YMS, Robbo, TWC and others have been going on about, then i'm no socialist…Cast me out into the wilderness…There are only just certain ideas i firmly and steadfastedly hold by…1. Capitalism can no longer be administered or reformed in the interest of the working class or of society. 2. Capitalism is incapable of eliminating poverty, wars, crises, etc. 3. Socialism can solve the social problems confronting society today, since the material conditions are ripe for socialism, save the lack of a socialist majority. I think we would come to a common agreement on those. However, being a socialist does not necessarily require an academic's grasp of the finer points of Marxian economics or philosophy. The acid test of socialist convictions hinges on knowing socialism as the solution to the social problems and the irreconcilable contradictions of capitalism.  These are the characteristics of a socialist as i see it and will add that there is also a coupling of the head and the heart as well as theory coupled with action. I sympathise with Robbo sometimes when he seeks to emphasise our human frailities and stress our moral courage and strengths. Our Party is made up of socialists who share a unity of agreement on the above simple generalisations. Thinking is not and never has been a violation of socialist discipline so as far as i know. LBird is fully entitled to challenge what he believes to be flaws in our case and offer what he considers improvements but remember – on many other matters he is wholeheartedly by our side, and i think that fact is often forgotten.  But others are free to counter his ideas as they see fit. I'm all for comradely criticism and who am i to silence the discussion just because i don't understand it.   

[Young Master Smeet]

Ah, now I see where you are coming from:

uncle Charlie wrote:

[The practical creation of an objective world, the fashioning of inorganic nature, is proof that man is a conscious species-being — i.e., a being which treats the species as its own essential being or itself as a species-being. It is true that animals also produce. They build nests and dwelling, like the bee, the beaver, the ant, etc. But they produce only their own immediate needs or those of their young; they produce only when immediate physical need compels them to do so, while man produces even when he is free from physical need and truly produces only in freedom from such need; they produce only themselves, while man reproduces the whole of nature; their products belong immediately to their physical bodies, while man freely confronts his own product. Animals produce only according to the standards and needs of the species to which they belong, while man is capable of producing according to the standards of every species and of applying to each object its inherent standard; hence, man also produces in accordance with the laws of beauty.

But

uncle CharlieThe universality of man manifests itself in practice in that universality which makes the whole of nature his inorganic body, (1) as a direct means of life and (2) as the matter, the object, and the tool of his life activity.  wrote:

Nature is man's inorganic body — that is to say, nature insofar as it is not the human body. Man lives from nature — i.e., nature is his body — and he must maintain a continuing dialogue with it is he is not to die. To say that man's physical and mental life is linked to nature simply means that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature.

(My emphasis) .  For Unca Charlie there is an objective world (and, due to alienation, an objective social world) the point of building a conscious association, a synonym for socialism for him, is to end that alienation and make our relationship to nature direct, and joyful.  So, here we have what I've been saying all along, a world exists outside us, of which our ideas and consciousness are a part, we are, to paraphrase Werner Herzog, the universe seeing itself. 

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Thinking is not and never has been a violation of socialist discipline so as far as i know. LBird is fully entitled to challenge what he believes to be flaws in our case and offer what he considers improvements but remember – on many other matters he is wholeheartedly by our side, and i think that fact is often forgotten.  But others are free to counter his ideas as they see fit.

Yes, this is a political debate on a political site. It's about the class power of (allegedly neutral) science.I have no problem whatsoever with any comrades disagreeing with me – as long as it's political criticism.But when I'm insulted personally, I'll return the favour.And I include bogus psychological diagnostics in the 'insults' box.Criticise my politics, not my alleged mental state, and we'll all be fine.I've no problem comrades criticising my 'democratic politics', I just point out that, to me, democratic workers' control of the means of production IS socialism.If anyone else wants elite control, that's their opinion – I just think they should be open about their own opinion, and not hide it behind the word 'socialist', as so many have done in the last 130 years since Marx's death.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Nature is man's inorganic body — that is to say, nature insofar as it is not the human body.

No, YMS, 'nature' includes humanity, and therefore consciousness.So, natural humanity changes 'inorganic nature' into 'organic nature', the part of 'nature' which is 'nature-for-humanity', our 'object'.That is to say, your characterisation of 'inorganic nature' as "nature insofar as it is not the human body" is wrong.'Inorganic nature' is "nature insofar as it is not the human body or socially produced organic nature". That is, 'objective nature' is our creation, our organic nature, fashioned by conscious humans, actively using socio-historical theory and practice, out of inorganic nature.Nature metabolises itself. We are thinking natural consciousness which creates. We are our own god.

[Young Master Smeet]

uncle Charlie wrote:

The universality of man manifests itself in practice in that universality which makes the whole of nature his inorganic body, (1) as a direct means of life and (2) as the matter, the object, and the tool of his life activity.  ] Nature is man's inorganic body — that is to say, nature insofar as it is not the human body. Man lives from nature — i.e., nature is his body — and he must maintain a continuing dialogue with it is he is not to die. To say that man's physical and mental life is linked to nature simply means that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature.

Sorry, jiggered up my tags, the quote is from the Economic and Philosophical manuscripts…

[Young Master Smeet]

Obviously by "The practical creation of an objective world, the fashioning of inorganic nature" Marx is also saying we make a world of our objects (and as much again, our consciousness resides in our products and the objects we create), not that we create the objective universe, we didn't make the sun, but we made the objects (words, ideas, notions) that accompany it.

[Author]

Posts