Marx was a Productionist, not a Materialist

[Young Master Smeet]

Last I cehcked we'd agred that we were talkign more or less about the same thing, save for your ideosyncratic desire to use your neologism of idealism-materialism, to which i suggest Neutral Monism as a different term that has historic and wider understood usage for much the same concept, which you rejected with a facile ad hominem. You then wenton to demonstrate a lack of understanding of what a communist is (we can add this to your demonstrated lack of understanding of what idealism is with your suggested metaphors of joining the dots with which you wished to misinform the workers).  You have provided no quotes where marx repudiates materialism as such (save, possibly, some misreadings).Anyway, I think, since you're willing to rely on the german Ideology for a phisolosophical basis that we stick to recommending that workers read that to get a sound political grasp.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

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

How do you know that?  Surely you can't know, since that would imply some sort of truth state of my communoscity?

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Anyway, I think, since you're willing to rely on the german Ideology for a phisolosophical basis…

I'm not willing to rely on any text, YMS. I want a discussion with comrades who also want to develop their ideas.Unlike you, I'm not the adherent of a religious ideology.Their god is 'matter'.And all those who dare to question 'matter', are condemned as heretics, trolls, and… wait for it… idealists!The religious know so, because the prophet Engels told them so.Although, most have never read either Marx or Engels, but they have it on the good authority of someone who has, so they say, read and understood the words of the masters. These are the priests of the religion of 'materialism', who tell the laity about 'materialism' and its goodness and the evilness of (boo, hiss) 'idealism'.I've even given the page number in Engels' pamphlet, where the priests got this nonsense from, so that the unread laity can refer to it and can start to develop their own understanding. But the laity are wary….  they've been warned, constantly, about the nasty 'idealists'… even the very word sends shudders through their bodies…… after all, 'idealism-materialism' is a contradiction, isn't it?Why 'theory and practice' was ever used by Communists, is anyone's guess. Surely it should be 'practice and theory', or just 'practice'…No, comrades, I'm afraid it's 'theory and practice', and I want to know what ideological theory each scientist employs in their practice.They always deny having an ideology, of course, because the 'material' talks to them…19th century bullshit, and whilst any socialists follow it, the working class will get nowhere. Except more 'leaders' in The Party, who supply, surreptitiously, the ideas missing from the material.Like 'scientists', they have a special consciousness denied to our class, which ensures that a democratic vote can never be taken on what either physicists or cadre tell us.I've said all this before, but… back to 'materialism'. "But it's solid, LBird, unlike an idea…"

[LBird]

LBird, post #20, wrote:

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

Since ALB hasn’t yet come back with a comment on the quote above, I’ll give the wider quotes, which also point to regarding part of ‘idealism’ as being a constituent of his ‘materialism’.

Bottomore and Rubel, p. 31 wrote:

In a later passage of the same letter he [ie. Marx] criticizes ‘Utopian Socialism’, which ‘in the period before materialist-critical socialism had contained the latter in germ…

And

Marx, MESC, p. 310, wrote:

It is natural that utopianism, which before the era of materialistically critical socialism concealed the latter within itself in embryo…

[his italics]Thus, the ‘embryo’ or ‘germ’ of Marx’s ‘materialism’ was ‘contained’ / ‘concealed’ within ‘idealism’.Thus, we can see that whatever Marx’s ‘materialism’ was, it wasn’t simply ‘materialism’, which is why it is always prefixed by other terms which try to capture this element of ‘idealism’, whether ‘historical’, ‘dialectical’, ALB’s suggested ‘social’, or my suggested ‘idealism’.The stress on the ‘materialism’ within Marx’s thinking is only acceptable if there is also a comparable stress on the ‘idealism’ within his thinking. And to reject this equally valued element in his thinking, by focussing merely upon ‘materialism’ to the exclusion of ‘idealism’, is to return to mechanical materialism, and its focus on ‘matter’ or the ‘physical’ or ‘being’, and its exclusion of ideas and consciousness. In short, its refusal to expose its own ideologically grounding, the basis of its own 'theory and practice'.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Since ALB hasn’t yet come back with a comment on the quote above

ALB isn't at his computer all day, everyday. He sometimes goes out. But "materialist-critical socialism" is as ok by me as well as "the materialist conception of history" or even "historical materialism". I don't think they are misleading (unless you want to be misled).

LBird wrote:

Thus, we can see that whatever Marx’s ‘materialism’ was, it wasn’t simply ‘materialism’

None of us here have ever said it was, despite your accusations that we do regard Marx  (and Engels) as simple materialists (by which you presumably mean define that only the physical is "real").So this is a never-ending argument about definitions.. As I say, I'm happy to call myself, like Marx was, to  a "materialist" in some broad sense. Doen't he write somewhere of his "materialist method"? I don't think that either "productionism" or "idealism-materialism" is a better name than "historical materialism". In fact, the second is a bit of an oxymoron like "square circle", "military intelligence" or "Islamic scholar".Anyway, I think we can let Marx and Engels have the final say, with this quote from their The German Ideology:

Quote:

Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to one another as masturbation to sexual love. [Chris Arthur, L & W edition, p. 103]

[Young Master Smeet]

1) Utopian socialism isn't necessarilly idealist.2) A qualified thing is still that thing.  A footballer can be a Gaelic Footballer, an Association Footballer, and American Footballer or a Rugby Footballer (non-exhaustive list): they are all still footballers.3) Lets look at the letter to Sorge, and add some context.  Marx is complaining about

Charlie wrote:

half-mature students and super-wise doctors who want to give socialism a “higher ideal” orientation, that is to say, to replace its materialistic basis (which demands serious objective study from anyone who tries to use it) by modern mythology with its goddesses of Justice, Freedom, Equality and Fraternity.

additionally Marx defines utopian socialism as

Quote:

playing with fancy pictures of the future structure of society

so not idealism (philosophical sense).https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/letters/77_10_19.htm

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

But "materialist-critical socialism" is as ok by me as well as "the materialist conception of history" or even "historical materialism". I don't think they are misleading (unless you want to be misled).

So, why not 'idealism-materialism', which captures both elements in Marx's double-barrelled 'concept'?That's not 'misleading', either.

ALB wrote:

So this is a never-ending argument about definitions.. As I say, I'm happy to call myself, like Marx was, to a "materialist" in some broad sense.

Why not the 'broad sense' of including 'idealism' within 'materialism'? Which is what Marx included.

ALB wrote:

I don't think that either "productionism" or "idealism-materialism" is a better name than "historical materialism". In fact, the second is a bit of an oxymoron like "square circle", "military intelligence" or "Islamic scholar".

Yes, but an oxymoron must be condemned on account of both elements, because it is the putting together of both that causes the clash of 'sharp/blunt' or 'clever/stupid' (which is what 'oxymoron' means in Greek). Either element on its own is just a term.So, if 'idealism-materialism' is to be condemned as an oxymoron, 'materialism' is part of the problem, too.Whereas I'm prepared to accept that 'historical materialism' can be regarded as a synonym for 'idealism-materialism', you are clearly not.Why? What is the sticking point in the discussion between us in accepting both parts of Marx's concept, as outlined both in the Theses in 1845 and in his letter to Sorge in 1877, to which your quote from Bottomore and Rubel drew my attention.This is the crux of our problem, and it's a philosophical difference, rather than a definitional one. If it was 'mere words', you'd have no problem with my suggestion.Unless the philosophical issue (and for us, the political implications, too) is resolved, then it remains a mystery to most workers, and Leninism and its 'materialism' will remain a threat to our class consciousness.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Why not the 'broad sense' of including 'idealism' within 'materialism'? Which is what Marx included.

This is confused because you seem think that "idealism" means "ideas" and "materialism" means "matter (which excludes ideas)". In short you seem to be stuck in a dualist way of thinking.

LBird wrote:

So, if 'idealism-materialism' is to be condemned as an oxymoron, 'materialism' is part of the problem, too.

So presumably when we criticize people on the same grounds for using the term "state-socialism" we are making a criticism of socialism which is "part of the problem, to"?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Why not the 'broad sense' of including 'idealism' within 'materialism'? Which is what Marx included.

This is confused because you seem think that "idealism" means "ideas" and "materialism" means "matter (which excludes ideas)". In short you seem to be stuck in a dualist way of thinking.

I'll take your statement at face value, DJP, though, god knows, I've been duped enough times.I'm not a dualist, because I can state what ideas I use to understand the material, because it's impossible to separate the two.Every time I've asked you to do the same, that is, tell me what ideology you use to understand the physical (or what ideology Strawson, or the other 'mind'-related theorists, whose links you have provided, employ), you haven't done so.This is because, I claim, you are not basing your ideas upon 'theory and practice', which was Marx's method. If I'm wrong, just tell us your ideology of science, that you employ to understand the physical.So, my 'theory' is Critical Realism, which I think is the same as Marx's method, because CR can be used to explain both rocks and value. I think CR is entirely compatible with both Communism and Democracy, and can provide a basis for a unified scientific method, which Marx sought. I'm always willing for comrades to point out how they think CR is not compatible, but no-one has.I'm open about my 'monist' ideology regarding science, so here's your chance to tell us what unites the ideal and physical in your ideology of science.If you don't 'expose' this in return, as I have 'exposed', I'll assume you're just trolling me, as you have done so far.

[DJP]

1. We have perceptions 2. We label and classify these perceptions 3. We look for patterns in these perceptions 4. We use these percieved patterns to try and predict future perceptions 5. We then do things according to these predictions, if it doesn't turn out right return to step 3 or 1.Incedentally just come accros CR attempt to bring the 'is' 'ought' gap:

Quote:

If we establish some fact about the world, we are simultaneously implying that other people ought to believe it. This provides a model for deriving an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’.http://oro.open.ac.uk/20394/1/1._Hammersley_final_August_9_09.pdf

 But I don't think we need CR to understand Marx and attempting to use it to do so will be more of a hinderance than a help. After all you are not claiming that no-one understood Marx before the 1970's are you?

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Every time I've asked you to do the same, that is, tell me what ideology you use to understand the physical (or what ideology Strawson, or the other 'mind'-related theorists, whose links you have provided, employ), you haven't done so.

Read the book. I'm just using Strawson as an example of current "materialist" thought. No-one follows crude "mechanistic-materialism" these days (I include the Leninist's in that no-one as they really are a dying breed).Though there's definately a lot of overlap between Strawson, Dietzgen and Russell it seems..

[LBird]

So, no answer.I thought not.More fool me.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

So, no answer.

I thought I gave one a few posts back. But being as you word things so strangely it's hard to know what you want. Are you asking which school of philosophy of science Strawson and myself subscribe to?

[DJP]

Here’s a presentation by Strawson that is simular to the “Real Materialism” essay. Idealism (if you wait till the questions at the end), Philosophy of Science, why call it physicalism, Russell, Dennett etc it’s all touched on here…So much for materialists claiming to be sole guardians of The Truth….

[ALB]

Is this Strawson connected to the "ordinary language philosopher" PF Strawson I was forced to study when I was in college years ago?. I say "forced to study" as I found so-called "ordinary language philosophy " so boring and nit-picking that I concentrated on studying classical philosophers such as Berkeley and Locke (though Hume was a bore too). Having said that, the logical positivism from which they were descended was a form of "materialism".Incidentally, the other Strawson's talk is given as a talk on "real naturalism" not "real materialism". This might make a difference as his "real naturalism" would only be one form of "materialism". I'm not sure I'd like the term "real materialism" as this would imply that all other kinds of materialism were not real or not really materialism.

[Author]

Posts