‘Materialism’ is the perfect ideology for elitists

[Young Master Smeet]

To avoid the wrath of the mods.

 

My claim is not that I have never understood Lbirds claim that  "'Materialism' is the perfect ideology for elitists because it posits a 'special consciousness', not available to all and so not democratic, by which the elite 'know matter'. " 

But that when challenged, Lbird has never substantiated:

1) That materialism necesarilly posits the requirement a special consciousness 

2) That such consciousness is 'not available to all.'

3) That it is necessarilly elitist.

I have further pointed out in the past that materialism, as opposed to the authoritarian theory of truth, means that everybody can know the world without needing a special consciousness, precisely the opposite: Lbird has never rebutted that claim.

(p.s. I did read the uninteresting article – I've never maintained Lbird was unique in discussing such matters, but more pertinently that he was treading ground adequately covered by Williams and Thompson long ago and the general thrust of cultural materialism)

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

But that when challenged, Lbird has never substantiated:1) That materialism necesarilly posits the requirement a special consciousness 2) That such consciousness is 'not available to all.'3) That it is necessarilly elitist.I have further pointed out in the past that materialism, as opposed to the authoritarian theory of truth, means that everybody can know the world without needing a special consciousness, precisely the opposite: Lbird has never rebutted that claim.

[my bold]So, if 'everybody can know', why can't they vote to change what they know?If it's because there is a difference between 'the world' and what 'they know of the world', who 'knows the world' that they collectively don't?Marx pointed this out in his Theses on Feuerbach. For 'materialism', there has to be an elite who 'know the world', who can tell the majority that they are wrong in their own determination of what 'everybody can know'.This 'materialist' elite will not have democracy within their society. They can't, because the majority would be able to impose their own 'knowledge of their world', which they elite 'materialists' hold that only they have the power to 'know'.This is why Lenin supported Engels' misunderstanding of Marx, and why 'materialism' is an ideology of an elite.

YMS wrote:

(p.s. I did read the uninteresting article – I've never maintained Lbird was unique in discussing such matters, but more pertinently that he was treading ground adequately covered by Williams and Thompson long ago and the general thrust of cultural materialism)

So, if you find the article 'uninteresting', why keep asking me to explain what you find 'uninteresting'?Just accept that you think you know better than 'everybody', and that for you, 'everybody' can't vote to change your own personal, individual 'knowledge', because you claim to 'know reality', by a biological method, and you don't agree with the social production of knowledge, which, in a democratic society like socialism, can only be a democratic product.You are a 'materialist' to protect your biological, individual right to 'know reality'. It's simple bourgeois philosophy, YMS. You're a product of a society that has told you this, all your life, and you uncritically believe it.'Materialism' is 'common sense', in a class society which abhors democratic production.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

So, if 'everybody can know', why can't they vote to change what they know?If it's because there is a difference between 'the world' and what 'they know of the world', who 'knows the world' that they collectively don't?

I'm not sure the question is sensible: if everybody can know the world, why won't Louise sleep with me?  They aren't two propositions that are causally linked.If I understand correctly what you're saying, because someone can be wrong, i.e. because truth exists, you're saying that only a minority can tell people they are wrong.  But that doesn't follow. No-one might the world' that they collectively don't.

LBird wrote:

Marx pointed this out in his Theses on Feuerbach. For 'materialism', there has to be an elite who 'know the world', who can tell the majority that they are wrong in their own determination of what 'everybody can know'.

You still haven't proven this, it could just as easily be a majority that points out the minority is wrong.  Claiming Max's authority (for what I consider a misreading of the theses) doe not constitute proof.I'd suggest your aunt sally answer, "because there is a difference between 'the world' and what 'they know of the world', is not the answer, rather, I'd suggest, it is because you cannot change knowing without changing being, being in the world preceeds knowing (social being determines social consciousness, as Engels said).  We and the world can change, but that does not mean that the being wasn't there: history has happened. Put more succinctly, because there is no magic.

[Anonymous]

Again putting more logs in the fire. Don't we have enoough discussion about the same shit ?  This forum is just a real wasting of time. What about real issues related to the working class ? 

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I'd suggest, it is because you cannot change knowing without changing being, being in the world preceeds knowing (social being determines social consciousness, as Engels said).

[my bold and italic]You're expressing an ideology, YMS, seemingly unknowingly. Ironic, eh?You're also confused (as was Engels, regarding Marx).In bold, 'being precedes knowing';In italic, 'social being precedes knowing'.In the former ideology, that in bold, 'being' is not 'conscious' (otherwise, it could not 'precede knowing').In the latter ideology, that in italic, 'social being' is 'conscious' (so 'being' alone cannot 'precede knowing').You wish Marx had said 'being determines social consciousness', but he said 'social being'.'Being' is a concept within 'materialism'.'Social being' is a concept within 'idealism-materialism'.You follow Engels' 'materialism', YMS, which separates 'being' and 'consciousness', object from subject.I follow Marx's 'idealism-materialism', which relates 'being and consciousness', object and subject.Because you separate, you can imagine a world of 'object' without a 'subject'; or, 'being' without 'consciousness'. Having imagined this, you then believe you can 'know' being, without any 'consciousness' being involved. Thus, you argue, as do all 'materialists', that 'being' precedes 'consciousness'.I know that this will be wasted on you, from the tone of rest of your post, but perhaps others will learn.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

Again putting more logs in the fire. Don't we have enoough discussion about the same shit ?  This forum is just a real wasting of time. What about real issues related to the working class ? 

Why not try reading and learning, mcolome1?It's not too edifying to see socialists praising ignorance.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

mcolome1 wrote:

Again putting more logs in the fire. Don't we have enoough discussion about the same shit ?  This forum is just a real wasting of time. What about real issues related to the working class ? 

Why not try reading and learning, mcolome1?It's not too edifying to see socialists praising ignorance.

How many have you discussed the same issue in this forum ?  What about the wars in Iraq and Sirya, and the Famine in Africa, the struggle of the workers against deportation, etc, etc,  Workers do not eat with Marx or Engels materialim or your bourgoise idealism

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

 Workers do not eat with Marx or Engels materialim or your bourgoise idealism

And workers do not carry out a class conscious revolution of self-determination with your ideology of Religious Materialism, mcolome1.You're right, of course, to discuss the other subjects that you mention, but revolutionary ideas are at least as important as full bellies.We can imagine a world where workers have 'full bellies', but no workers' revolution, but we can't imagine a world where there is a workers' revolution, but no class conscious science, philosophy, physics, maths, logic, etc.My 'idealism', by the way, is Marx's: 'idealism-materialism', social theory and practice, democratic production.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

In the former ideology, that in bold, 'being' is not 'conscious' (otherwise, it could not 'precede knowing').

That which is not conscious cannot know,  conscious being precedes knowing, so your above claim is false.Thus dies your straw man.But, to return to the point of the thread: your major premise.You have yet to prove that the existence of an objective world means that it is only accesible to special consciousness, and thus necessitates elitism.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

You have yet to prove that the existence of an objective world means that it is only accesible to special consciousness, and thus necessitates elitism.

So why isn't this world accessible to democracy?

[Young Master Smeet]

I'm not sure I understand the question.How does that question relate to or prove that an objective world requires special consciousness?At a guess I'd say an objective world is open to democracy, as people will directly access and understand it themselves, without needing an elite, as I've suggested before, so your question seems to support my cas more than thine. 

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

At a guess I'd say an objective world is open to democracy, as people will directly access and understand it themselves, without needing an elite, as I've suggested before, so your question seems to support my cas more than thine. 

[my bold]Then we agree, YMS.

[Young Master Smeet]

Ah, so we agree materialism isn't inherently elitist?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Ah, so we agree materialism isn't inherently elitist?

Yes, because you've said that it's democratic, and that's fine by me.

[Anonymous]

mcolome1 wrote:

Again putting more logs in the fire. Don't we have enoough discussion about the same shit ?  This forum is just a real wasting of time. What about real issues related to the working class ? 

 The rules state clearly that spam will be removed as will trolls.  LBird is a Troll, all his posts seek an emotional response by accusing people of holding views they clearly don't hold. As for spam, it clearly infests this forum. If mods can permanently ban a member of the party and refuse to reinstate him, why can't they remove spam and trolls? The rules are meaningless.

[Author]

Posts