Marx was a Productionist, not a Materialist

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

It just that 'mental' is a catergory of "material" phenomena…

So why can't the ideal supervene on the material, and the material supervene on the ideal?If the 'mental' is 'material', then ideas must produce material.You deny this by arguing for 'physicalism', which is just the modern term for 'mechanical materialism'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Strawson wrote:

Materialism is the view that every real, concrete phenomenon in the universe is physical.

This is an ideological statement.Strawson is not a Communist.For a Communist, the ideas are as real as the physical.Marx argues that not one iota of matter can be found in 'value'. It is not simply physical.Value is 'ideal-material'.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

For a Communist, the ideas are as real as the physical.

This, of course, is completely untrue and galavanting ignorant rubbish.   A communist may be an idealist, seeing communism as the utlimate realisation of the will of god, or the unfurling of the world spirit, the re-unification of humans and faeries.  They could maintain that communism is an idea that humans have to open themselves to.  They could insist that teh Qabbalah will reveal the word that will create communism opn earth, or the ritual we have to dance to produce communism.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

It just that 'mental' is a catergory of "material" phenomena…

So why can't the ideal supervene on the material, and the material supervene on the ideal?If the 'mental' is 'material', then ideas must produce material.You deny this by arguing for 'physicalism', which is just the modern term for 'mechanical materialism'.

Superveince is to do with levels of explanation, much the same as emergence is. Your question just doesn't make sense…

[LBird]

A further reference for ALB.

Marx, quoted in Bottomore and Rubel, p. 31, wrote:

…materialist-critical socialism…

In Marx Engels Selected Correspondence, this is given as

Marx, MESC, p. 310, wrote:

…materialistically critical socialism…

Marx to F. A. Sorge, October 19th, 1877

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Your question just doesn't make sense…

So why not draw the conclusion that what I'm saying is of no interest to you, because it is senseless, and just ignore me?I've done my best to point out why we disagree (we have different philosophical assumptions), but you don't seem interested in exploring our differences.This is a philosophical issue, not one of 'physics'.That is, it's about 'science' as a human (and therefore ideological) activity, not about 'science' as a 'discovery method for Material Truth'.So, my 'question' won't 'make sense' to you.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

For a Communist, the ideas are as real as the physical.

This, of course, is completely untrue and galavanting ignorant rubbish.

You need to either speak to ALB, or read Dietzgen. Or any Critical Realist.Or just get out more.

[Young Master Smeet]

You seem to have misunderstood what part of the sentence I objected to. 

Quote:

For a communist

a communist can hold any philosophical view, as long as they believe in the common ownership of wealth, whether they are theistically inspired, idealistically inspired or materialistically inspired, they remain communists. So what you wrote was simple not true, in any sense, and cannot be defended.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

You seem to have misunderstood what part of the sentence I objected to. 

Quote:

For a communist

a communist can hold any philosophical view, as long as they believe in the common ownership of wealth, whether they are theistically inspired, idealistically inspired or materialistically inspired, they remain communists. So what you wrote was simple not true, in any sense, and cannot be defended.

Spoken like a true liberal, for whom 'individual choice' reigns supreme.Politics and power really are a mystery to you, YMS.If you don't want to discuss Marx's 'materialism', then please ignore me.

[Young Master Smeet]

Anyway, back to Russell:

Quote:

The larger events in the political life of the world are determined by the interaction of material conditions and human passions. The operation of the passions on the material conditions is modified by intelligence. The passions themselves may be modified by alien intelligence guided by alien passions. So far, such modification has been wholly unscientific, but it may in time become as precise as engineering.

Pretty much what Lbird is saying, AFAICS.

Quote:

it is a mistake to attempt to inaugurate Communism in a country where the majority are hostile, or rather, where the active opponents are as strong as the active supporters, because in such a state of opinion a very severe civil war is likely to result. It is necessary to have a great body of opinion favourable to Communism, and a rather weak opposition, before a really successful Communist state can be introduced either by revolution or by more or less constitutional methods.It may be assumed that when Communism is first introduced, the higher technical and business staff will side with the capitalists and attempt sabotage unless they have no hopes of a counter-revolution. For this reason it is very necessary that among wage-earners there should be as wide a diffusion as possible of technical and business education, so that they may be able immediately to take control of big complex industries. In this respect Russia was very badly off, whereas England and America would be much more fortunate.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Pretty much what Lbird is saying, AFAICS.

Nothing like what I'm saying, but don't let that interfere with your fantasy.Unless you (and DJP) are prepared to discuss the philosophical and ideological differences (and similarities) between thinkers (including Marx and Engels), then you'll never understand what 'LBird is saying'.But then, for 'materialists', this is a pointless exercise, because they have access to 'The Truth', and the very concept that 'ideas' are required to understand 'material', and thus that both must be examined, because changing 'ideas' changes understanding of 'material', is anathema to 'materialists'. They have access to the 'material' as it is, and 'what is' thus cannot be criticised. How can 'truth' be criticised, if the 'truth' is identical to 'what exists'. Their 'understanding' is given by the 'material', because their knowledge of the 'material' is a copy, a reflection of 'reality'.Why not read the book ALB says is recommended reading by the SPGB? That is, Karl Marx: Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy edited by Bottomore and Rubel. At least it's a start for critical thinking about Marx's 'materialism'.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

But then, for 'materialists', this is a pointless exercise, because they have access to 'The Truth',

More junk. Why do you persist with the same strawman crap?

LBird wrote:

Why not read the book ALB says is recommended reading by the SPGB? That is, Karl Marx: Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy edited by Bottomore and Rubel. At least it's a start for critical thinking about Marx's 'materialism'.

That was actually one of the first books about Marx a read many years ago thanks to a find in a charity, and before I'd even heard of the SPGB.But I'm stopping now because as far as I'm concerned you're just trolling…

[Young Master Smeet]

Russell wrote:

The larger events in the political life of the world are determined by the interaction of material conditions and human passions. The operation of the passions on the material conditions is modified by intelligence.

looks very much he same as

Quote:

But then, for 'materialists', this is a pointless exercise, because they have access to 'The Truth', and the very concept that 'ideas' are required to understand 'material', and thus that both must be examined, because changing 'ideas' changes understanding of 'material', is anathema to 'materialists'.

I'd recommend you read Russell. BTW, are you still a Communist?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

But I'm stopping now because as far as I'm concerned you're just trolling…

If anyone is trolling around here, it's you and YMS.No matter how many times I explain, give quotes, construct detailed analogies, you can guarantee that you and YMS will chirp in with "But it's material!"When asked which ideology says 'But it's material!', neither of you can give an answer.And your endless reference to 'physicalists' shows that you don't have a clue what's being discussed.Strawson and the rest are just as clueless, too.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

BTW, are you still a Communist?

I know you're still not, so I don't need to ask. Troll.

[Author]

Posts