Members against Materialism

[Anonymous]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Dear ModeratorApologies. On re-reading my post, it may come across that I was trying to be disingenuous with my comments. In retrospect, using words like: low self esteem, friendless and bellend,. could be interpreted in a different way than I intended, if this is the case, please accept my withdrawal of those terms. So just to be clear, it is not my view that L Bird is a friendless, bellend who suffers from problems associated with low self esteem. I hope that clarifies the matter,.

 Lol 

[jondwhite]

LBird wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

LBird wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

The early parts of this text suggest a critique of materialismhttps://libcom.org/library/spgb-utopian-or-scientific-fallacy-overwhelming-minority

Can'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.

I've had a very brief look at the rtf, jdw, and his main problem seems to be a failure to distinguish between Marx and Engels.That is, as far as I can tell after a quick browse, he, like the SPGB, still regards the being Marx-Engels as a unity.If you know differently, could you point me to the relevant passages?

I have found the excerpt in question and actually it comes from an article I used as a preface in the printed book.

Quote:

The conviction that not merely dialectical materialism but materialism in general was inherently self-contradictory (in the sense, for example, that it postulates a completely objective reality independent of or essentially unrelated to the knowledge of it, which however is and can only be a mere abstract concept and thus completely subjective) brought Harold Walsby to a general systematic critique of Marxist political assumptions, especially in far as they turn on the view that men’s consciousness is basically formed by or dependent on their material conditions of existence. Insisting that consciousness, or thought, also had its own independent nature and laws of operation, and thus was in a vital sense self-determined, Walsby eventually arrived at the concept of a hierarchy of forms or modes of thinking such that each level or “layer” of thought is more highly organised, more systematic, more detached and rational, especially in its view of society and social problems, than its predecessor – and also less extensive quantitatively (i.e. held by fewer people). Thus he held that the programme of such a body as the S.P.G.B., resting as it did on the assumption that a majority of people could become imbued with a critical, rational view of the social order, was vitiated by the inherently self-limiting nature of the development of thought.

P. J. Rollings: Harold Walsby (1911-1975) A Brief Intellectual Biography

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

LBird wrote:

I've had a very brief look at the rtf, jdw, and his main problem seems to be a failure to distinguish between Marx and Engels.That is, as far as I can tell after a quick browse, he, like the SPGB, still regards the being Marx-Engels as a unity.If you know differently, could you point me to the relevant passages?

I have found the excerpt in question and actually it comes from an article I used as a preface in the printed book.

Quote:

The conviction that not merely dialectical materialism but materialism in general was inherently self-contradictory (in the sense, for example, that it postulates a completely objective reality independent of or essentially unrelated to the knowledge of it, which however is and can only be a mere abstract concept and thus completely subjective) brought Harold Walsby to a general systematic critique of Marxist political assumptions, especially in far as they turn on the view that men’s consciousness is basically formed by or dependent on their material conditions of existence. Insisting that consciousness, or thought, also had its own independent nature and laws of operation, and thus was in a vital sense self-determined, Walsby eventually arrived at the concept of a hierarchy of forms or modes of thinking such that each level or “layer” of thought is more highly organised, more systematic, more detached and rational, especially in its view of society and social problems, than its predecessor – and also less extensive quantitatively (i.e. held by fewer people). Thus he held that the programme of such a body as the S.P.G.B., resting as it did on the assumption that a majority of people could become imbued with a critical, rational view of the social order, was vitiated by the inherently self-limiting nature of the development of thought.

http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=420

Thanks for your efforts, jdw.From this analysis of 'materialism', which I think Marx would also share (never mind Lukacs, Korsch, Pannekoek, E. M. Wood, etc.), it seems he was spot on!His real problem, though, was that he started from the assumption of the unified being 'Marx-Engels', and thus logically assumed that if he disagreed with 'materialism', this was an ideology shared by both Engels and Marx, and so 'Marxism' was the culprit.If he'd have realise that Marx's 'materialism' (ie. social production) is nothing to do with Engels' 'materialism' (ie. 'hard stuff' like 'matter' determining 'consciousness'), then he'd have realised that the 'Marxism' he disagreed with was actually 'Engelsism'.Of course, whatever political conclusions he then drew from his repudiation of 'Marxism' has nothing to do with us Democratic Communists, who look to the active, class conscious proletariat as the creator of 'socialism', as outlined (quite obscurely, though), by Marx.

[jondwhite]

Isn't it a case, as far as you are concerned, of the less 'materialism' the better the theory?

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Isn't it a case, as far as you are concerned, of the less 'materialism' the better the theory?

As far as I'm concerned, the more of 'Marx' and the less of 'Engels', the more of 'theory and practice' and the less of 'practice and theory'……so, as I keep saying, the balance between 'materialism' and 'idealism' must be struck.Marx struck this balance in his Theses on Feuerbach, where he tooks parts of both idealism and materialism, and ditched parts of both idealism and materialism.If one is going to include the term 'materialism' in a description of Marx's epistemology, then it must be balanced with the term 'idealism'.If the sole usage 'materialism' is ditched, so too can 'idealism'.We could call it 'theory and practice', because that it how we actively construct our knowledge of the world.This is nothing to do with 'matter' determining 'consciousness', as Engels mistakenly thought.By 'material conditions', Marx meant 'socio-historical conditions produced by humanity', not 'bricks and mortar' or simply 'physical things'.It looks like neither the current SPGB or its splitter Walsby came to understand this, and both simply equated 'Marx' with 'materialism'. When Walsby realised that 'materialism' was nonsense, it caused him to ditch 'Marx', too, because he never sought the differences between Charlie and Fred.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Of course, whatever political conclusions he then drew from his repudiation of 'Marxism' has nothing to do with us Democratic Communists, who look to the active, class conscious proletariat as the creator of 'socialism', as outlined (quite obscurely, though), by Marx.

Well as a materialist, I would like to hear an explanation as to why the proletariate did not create socialism a 1000 years ago?Could it have something to do with "Engels' 'materialism' (ie. 'hard stuff' like 'matter' determining 'consciousness')" ?

[Anonymous]

 so retreat into ad hominems and flee the field, only to return to make arguments by assertion and appeal to authority later on. 

[Author]

Posts