Question about historical materialism
- This topic has 181 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:Marx didn't say 'the world only exists in our minds', Vin, so, no, you're wrong.
No Marx didn't! You did! So there is a reality outside of our brains? If you now accept this then you are making progress. What about the proletariate ruling in communism to prevent 'elite' groups from taking control? And the worldwide vote on the truth? Still sticking to those?Oh and the organised social violence??
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:Marx didn't say 'the world only exists in our minds', Vin, so, no, you're wrong.No Marx didn't! You did! So there is a reality outside of our brains? If you now accept this then you are making progress. What about the proletariate ruling in communism to prevent 'elite' groups from taking control? And the worldwide vote on the truth? Still sticking to those?Oh and the organised social violence??
Now where getting to the awkward bit for him, expect abuse followed by silence
LBird wrote:But, as usual, you'd rather abuse Marxists……First of all, you are not a marxist and secondly, anyone reading my last two posts can see I did not abuse you. Indeed the moderator would have or will mention it – You simply have no argument, just lots of long words you do not understand.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:Marx didn't say 'the world only exists in our minds', Vin, so, no, you're wrong.No Marx didn't! You did!
No, I didn't, Vin. You're making that up. Neither Marx nor I said that.Engels said that if one wasn't a 'materialist', that they must be an 'idealist', because for Engels there were only two options. That's where you're getting your ideology from. You should read Engels' Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy, pp. 17-19, to discover why you say what you do.
Vin wrote:So there is a reality outside of our brains? If you now accept this then you are making progress.Let's take this slowly, so you can't make up (again and again), what Marx and I supposedly say.'Reality' is a human creation. 'Reality' is socially produced, and so has a history. And since we create 'reality', by our social theory and practice, we can change it. And those changes should be democratically decided upon.This is all Marx: social production, history, social theory and practice, change by us, democracy.You should read Marx some time, Vin. You might be suprised, and actually learn something.So, to directly answer your question in your terms, 'the reality outside of our brains' is our product, 'reality-for-us'.
LBird wrote:so you can't make up (again and again), what Marx and I supposedly say.That is really pathetic.Anyway to stick to the point. Do you believe that there is an objective reality that exists independent of society? Or do you still believe that the moon only came into existence when it was socially produced?
Tim Kilgallon wrote:Vin wrote:LBird wrote:Marx didn't say 'the world only exists in our minds', Vin, so, no, you're wrong.No Marx didn't! You did! So there is a reality outside of our brains? If you now accept this then you are making progress. What about the proletariate ruling in communism to prevent 'elite' groups from taking control? And the worldwide vote on the truth? Still sticking to those?Oh and the organised social violence??
Now where getting to the awkward bit for him, expect abuse followed by silence
There's nothing 'awkward' about Marx's ideas about 'social production' and democracy, Tim. And you and Vin (et al) are the ones who turn to 'abuse', because you can't understand, never mind argue about, Marx's views about democratic social production. The 'silence' is because I get fed up saying the same things to you and Vin, and being abused for it. I'm only doing this again in the hope that there is a new audience for Marx's ideas about social production, history and change, and our part in it.Keep listening to what 'matter' tells you, Tim, if that suits you. But I'm compelled to tell workers that rocks do not talk to Tim, Vin, or any other 'materialist'.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:so you can't make up (again and again), what Marx and I supposedly say.That is really pathetic.Anyway to stick to the point. Do you believe that there is an objective reality that exists independent of society? Or do you still believe that the moon only came into existence when it was socially produced?
You'll have to read Marx, Vin. You're not going to take my word for it, so it's pointless me continuing to explain Marx to you.Marx argues that we create our reality. You don't agree with Marx, and so you won't agree with me.
Marx never argued that 'truth' will be decided by a vote of the entire world population and when decided upon will be imposed on all individuals and communities by a socially organised violent group.Only LBird claims that nonsenseMarx never argued that the proletariate will rule in communism to ensure protection from elite groups. Only LBird claims that nonsenseThat is because LBird is a Stalinist and not a Marxist
LBird wrote:Keep listening to what 'matter' tells you,You listen God. I will listen to matter. The funny thing is you make it sound like an insult!!Shame the Bolsheviks didn't listen to the MATERIAL conditions. I see you follow in Lenin's footsteps and later Stalin with your idealism
It seemed to me that those Marxists (eg Paul Mattick) who adhered to the tendency for the declining rate of profit were those Marxists who firmly believed that the workers themselves needed to emancipate themselves by their own volition – our own view – but struggled to see how workers would reach such conclusions through education when the prevailing capitalist ideology was so dominant.They had to trust in an intensifying class struggle to bring about a change in consciousness.These Marxists could only envisage capitalism growing more unstable and exploitative because of the falling rate of profit where workers have little choice but to resist through class war and they find themselves sharing a similar outlook as the Trotskyists that the class struggle is the education for socialist revolution, but rather than the Party, for the anti-Leninist Marxist it is either the syndicalist unions or worker councils which is the medium for class/socialist activity.
LBird wrote:Vin wrote:LBird wrote:so you can't make up (again and again), what Marx and I supposedly say.That is really pathetic.Anyway to stick to the point. Do you believe that there is an objective reality that exists independent of society? Or do you still believe that the moon only came into existence when it was socially produced?
You'll have to read Marx, Vin. You're not going to take my word for it, so it's pointless me continuing to explain Marx to you.Marx argues that we create our reality. You don't agree with Marx, and so you won't agree with me.
Do YOU believe that there is an objective reality that exists independent of society???? Because you have stated clearly that you don't.. Whereas Marx did. So you disagree with Marx?
LBird wrote:Marx argues that we create our reality.out of material conditions we find at hand
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:Marx argues that we create our reality.out of material conditions we find at hand
Yes, Vin, and the 'material conditions' are those created by previous generations of humans employing social theory and practice.Marx is talking about the history of social production, not the one-off, ahistorical, uncovering of 'matter', that 'materialists' allege that they are doing.Thus, 'The Sun' is a social product. We can tell this because different societies through history have had different accounts of what 'The Sun' supposedly 'really is'. And so, any account of 'The Sun', including your account, has to be situated within the society that produces that account. Science has a social history. Knowledge has a social history.No doubt, 'your own' account of 'The Sun' will involve your individual biological senses, especially from 'your own' eyes. And we can see that you got this belief in 'individual biology', not from Marx (who argues that our senses are socially created, and thus refracted through our social perception, our ideas, our consciousness), but from the bourgeoisie, who you unquestioningly follow. " 'Individual senses' as the source of social knowledge" is a ruling class idea, and you have uncritically accepted this, all your life. That's why ruling class ideas are powerful, and have to be challenged.By 'material', Marx means 'human', as opposed to 'ideal', meaning 'divine'.So when Marx writes 'material', he means 'social', not 'matter'.So, by 'material conditions' he means 'socially produced conditions', not 'hard stuff' we can touch (like 'technology' or a 'factory').Engels didn't understand this, and you follow Engels, Vin, not Marx.
LBird wrote:Thus, 'The Sun' is a social product. We can tell this because different societies through history have had different accounts of what 'The Sun' supposedly 'really is'.Don't you mean elitist accounts of what the sun is/was? Surely according to your idealism, the Sun doesn't yet exist! It will only exist when the world's proletariate votes it into existence! Or are you accepting what the bourgeoisies elitists have told you?Your full of contradictions, LBird. The Sun has not changed only our interpretation of it . Admit it – your goose is cooked
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.