Members against Materialism
- This topic has 51 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
jondwhite wrote:Is it fair to say Walsby rejected materialism as a SPGB member?
I'd be interested to know if he adopted Marx's 'theory and practice', jdw, as a replacement for Engels' 'materialism'. Many thinkers have suggested this need for a wariness of Engels, since Labriola in 1896.Do you have any links, that I could read up on Walsby's views?
The early parts of this text suggest a critique of materialismhttps://libcom.org/library/spgb-utopian-or-scientific-fallacy-overwhelming-minority
By coincidence there's an article in the latest Socialist Standard (February) on Labriola written by one of our comrades from Italy and so with access to his writings in the original Italian including on "materialismo storico":http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2016/no-1338-february-2016/antonio-labriola-strict-marxist
jondwhite wrote:The early parts of this text suggest a critique of materialismhttps://libcom.org/library/spgb-utopian-or-scientific-fallacy-overwhelming-minorityCan't get access to those documents, jdw.Do you have a pdf?
ALB wrote:By coincidence there's an article in the latest Socialist Standard (February) on Labriola written by one of our comrades from Italy and so with access to his writings in the original Italian including on "materialismo storico":http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2016/no-1338-february-2016/antonio-labriola-strict-marxistYeah, seems a pretty even-handed article.Labriola was especially correct on the need that:
Labriola, article p. 15, wrote:‘We must insist on the expression ‘democratic socialisation of the means of production’…But our argument seems to be about the content of 'means': simply 'material' tools, or including scientific ideas and techniques.If 'means' includes Marx's 'theory and practice', then it's as much 'ideal' as it is 'material'.If 'means' are just 'tangible things', then the rocks are in charge of us.
LBird wrote:Do you have any links, that I could read up on Walsby's views?I referred you to his work a long time ago
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:Do you have any links, that I could read up on Walsby's views?I referred you to his work a long time ago
But apparently you're keeping hold of your ball this time, eh, Vin?Or you could provide a link, unless it's now your personal property, and you're taking it home, so the naughty kid can't play with it, too.
I may have suggested Walford http://gwiep.net/wp/?page_id=95
Vin wrote:I may have suggested Walford http://gwiep.net/wp/?page_id=95Thanks for the link, comrade.I'll have a read later, busy for the next few hours.
Labriola will have meant by "means of production" what nearly everybody else did and still does, i.e. the materials that originally came from nature, the machines and tools used to fashion these into useful things, and the buildings where this takes place. Actually, our Object, drawn up in 1904, is even more precise by distinguishing between "means of production" and "instruments of production", i.e between materials from nature ("means") and the human-made machines and constructions ("instruments"):
Quote:The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.Labriola,writing in 1896, also argued that this sort of definition distinguished socialism from state ownership or state capitalism ("State Socialism" as it was sometimes then called):
Quote:It is better to use the expression "democratic socialization of the means of production" than that of "collective property" because the latter implies a certain theoretical error in that, to begin with, it substitutes for the real economic fact a juridical expression and moreover in the mind of more than one it is confused with the increase of monopolies, with the increasing statization of public utilities and with all the other fantasmagoria of the ever recurring State socialism, the whole effect of which is to increase the economic means of oppression in the hands of the oppressing class.LBird wrote:jondwhite wrote:The early parts of this text suggest a critique of materialismhttps://libcom.org/library/spgb-utopian-or-scientific-fallacy-overwhelming-minorityCan't get access to those documents, jdw.Do you have a pdf?
I have now added documents in other formats docx, odt and rtf. Hope this is easier to read.You can get a pocket paperback here if you want it in printhttp://www.lulu.com/shop/harold-walsby/spgb-utopian-or-scientific/paperback/product-21092281.html
ALB wrote:Labriola will have meant by "means of production" what nearly everybody else did and still does, i.e. the materials that originally came from nature, the machines and tools used to fashion these into useful things, and the buildings where this takes place. Actually, our Object, drawn up in 1904, is even more precise by distinguishing between "means of production" and "instruments of production", i.e between materials from nature ("means") and the human-made machines and constructions ("instruments"):Quote:The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.Whilst I would class 'social products' in the 'means of production' (as would Marx), if Labriola didn't, then he was wrong. That would be 'materialism', the ideology of Engels.But, you claim that the SPGB also includes 'instruments' within the 'democratic' purview.Does 'instruments' include maths and physics, are are you still employing Engels' 'materialism', which defines 'stuff' as 'material', rather than both social products, thoughts and stuff.We've had some initial discussions before on this issue of 'definition', when we spoke of Dietzgen: for him, as for Marx, the ideal and the material had equal weight.So, the problem once more is whether one is an Engelsian 'materialist' (who defines, like you, 'production' as about 'machines, tools, buildings, constructions', ie. 'tangible matter') or if one is a Marxist 'idealist-materialist' (who defines, like me, 'production' as including social ideas as well as your list).I suggest that unless we define what 'means' include (either 'material' or 'ideal-material'), then we will talk at cross-purposes.I further suggest that Marx was discussing 'social production', not 'matter'. The latter is Engels' misunderstanding.'Social production' clearly includes 'ideas' (and so, maths and physics).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.