Question about historical materialism
- This topic has 181 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:I have no wish for the SPGB to be a philosopher's club which LBird seems intent upon making us into by his constant avoidance of constructive exchanges on actual practice, despite repeated imploring from myself. We are a political party that should be centred on political action, and that is, indeed, what is often lacking in our activity.
You still don't get it, alan.'Theory' precedes 'practice'.There is no 'actual practice', without a preceding 'theory'. Those, like you, who think that there is, are simply lying to workers – or, at best, are completely ignorant of Marx. I think that you are in the latter category.So, despite my repeated implorings, you refuse to tell workers what 'theory' you espouse.And the 'theory' that your party does espouse, 'materialism' (or, 'practice and theory'), says that workers can't change their world (and by 'world', Marx means their physical universe).And you're a party that 'lacks in conscious theory', and so any 'activity' will be of no use to revolutionary workers. Indeed, your members, and you, never mention workers' democracy in creating 'our-sun'. You claim to 'know The Sun', as an ahistoric, asocial, 'reality', by using your 'individual biological senses'.It's political and philosophical nonsense, alan.
Antoher materialist-idealist said that Marx is the practice converted into a theory,
LBird wrote:Marcos wrote:LBird wrote:Yes, Marcos, especially from p. 34-43 of Marxism and Freedom.She was on to something, when trying to challenge the dominance of Engels' 'materialism' within the socialist movement.But she left some serious gaps in her thought, especially regarding Marx's adherence to democracy, and, even given her insights about Marx's idealism-materialism, she fell back into 'materialist' explanations.I know Raya works pretty well, and I knew her, and I was a member of her organization for several years, but like you, she wanted to unify idealism with materialism, and she also tried to blame everything on Engels like you, so what is the difference between you and her ? The only major difference is that she rejected the vanguard party to lead, but she was always a Leninists, and she indicated that Engels was a post Marxist. What movement ? There is not any socilaist movement, and we have not had a socialist movement yet. She was part of the world reformist trend. How can she fall into materialist explanation when she rejected Lenin bourgoise materialism ?
[my bold]You've answered your own question, here, Marcos.The difference is, like Marx, I'm a consistent 'idealist-materialist'.No matter what she wrote about this (which I agree with), she then fell back into 'materialism' – hence, back into Leninism. She was an inconsistent idealist-materialist. She managed to identify the theoretical (and thus, political) problem with 'materialism' (it philosophically supports elistism, not democracy), but couldn't jettison 19th century science (ie. materialism), just as Engels couldn't.But we live in the 21st century, Marcos, where Marx's notions of 'humanity creating its object' fits nicely with the advances of physics, where they are starting to recognise that Marx was correct – 'our object' is not only 'the material' or 'the physical', but time and space, too.Humans create their universe. Marx is still relevant.
And you have not answered your ? You are speaking in the name of the world working class. It sounds like Lenin who indicated that Marx was able to explain everything that exists under the sun
LBird wrote:And the 'theory' that your party does espouse, 'materialism' (or, 'practice and theory'), says that workers can't change their world (and by 'world', Marx means their physical universe).It is LBird who doesn’t get it.The Party has always had a theoretical platform — its century old Object and Declaration of Principles — that is based on Marxian theory, and was partly written by Marx himself.Membership of the Party depends on adherence to its theoretical Obj and Dop. Activity is subservient to it. The Obj and Dop are the theory of Party practice, and have always been, for over a century.There is no other political party whose practice is so tightly aligned to its theory. No other Party exemplifies LBird’s highly vaunted unity of theory and practice. None!The other Parties that once had an Obj and Dop rapidly repudiated, disavowed, them.LBird, show us your own platform, your Object and Declaration of Principles. Carefully explain your Obj and your Dop.LBird’s own self-professed practice doesn’t conform to his own trumpeted theory, for he proudly boasts of telling workers to vote Labour. Is that practice before theory? Or is that just plain LBird confusion?LBird’s critique of practice without theory makes perfect sense against militant voluntarism that he actually advocates — for voluntarism blindly seeks to learn from mistakes, because it denies the might of the social laws that sustain capitalist reproduction so long as its working class accepts and fights for capitalism and rejects and opposes socialism.But materialism does not say workers can’t change their world. That is LBird’s vivid imagination. The Socialist party is not a leftist organisation seeking to wring impossible concessions from capitalism.Grow up, LBird, and comprehend the Party and its history of theory and practice over the past century and more.The Party rightly cautions against leftist voluntarism — which you take to be opposing activity — that sacred concept of yours, which for you is, mistakenly, entirely Idealist in your kindergarten misreading of Marx’s Thesis I.On identical grounds, for identical reasons, Marx scorned hot-headed Blanquists who were eager to do “something”, they knew not what when, as he said, the times for voluntarist action were unpropitious.That is the only caution that materialism can give.Freedom is the recognition of necessity (which you hotly deny) and successful activity is always bound by necessity.Sadly, educating a socialist working class is about the only rational activity, for the moment, that is available to a Socialist party bound by its century old Obj and Dop. Which is why Alan wants to water it down.You are quite correct in saying that thought precedes action (except for involuntary reaction). That is the palpable, totally obvious, form of appearance that materialism explains.Idealism, at least Idealism of the vulgar variety, mistakes such obvious appearance for reality.On the other hand, materialism scientifically challenges philosophical idealsm (all in the mind, only), for which thought can only ground thought, and seeks the grounding of thought in a world beyond thought.That’s precisely why Engels (Plato et al.) assert that materialism and idealism are irreconcilable. Either thought grounds itself, and finds its truth within itself, or it is grounded in the exteriority of itself, in the that-sidedness, in the other, in the non-subjective world of action — the material world.The grounding of thought in something beyond thought is materialist, and it has very little to do with atoms (as you ignorantly pontificate).Such a historical materialism, as Marx’s, which is grounded in the necessary social practice of social production and reproduction, encourages the working class to recognise what it is up against, and to comprehend the implications of its social action.
Marcos wrote:Antoher materialist-idealist said that Marx is the practice converted into a theory,No, Marcos, 'idealism-materialism' is 'theory and practice'.That's the whole point. There isn't a 'non-theoretical' practice which produces 'theory'. That's (supposed) 'induction'.Putting 'practice' first is an ideological and political move, to allow the (supposed) 'practitioners' to hide their own theory, and thus present their own pre-existing theory as a result of 'un-ideological' practice.That's why it was Lenin's chosen method. He pretended to 'Know Matter' without any prior theory, and claimed he was simply theorising 'objective activity'. He was a liar, an elitist, and a danger to workers' democracy.As Marx warned, in his Theses on Feuerbach, all materialists must do this. It's the nature of 'materialism'. It's a bourgeois philosophy for elites.Dunayevskaya seems to sense this, but was never able to draw the correct political conclusion. That is, workers' democracy.
Marcos wrote:And you have not answered your ? You are speaking in the name of the world working class. It sounds like Lenin who indicated that Marx was able to explain everything that exists under the sun1. I'm a worker, arguing that workers' democracy is essential to the revolutionary proletariat. The world working class can reject that, but then they will be politically disarmed. That is their choice.2. Why keep trotting out the old canard that I say that 'Marx was infallible'? I've answered this accusation, that you constantly make, several times now. Why not read what I write? Marx was a shit writer, who contradicted himself, and he certainly wasn't 'able to explain everything under the sun'. Now, I've said that yet again, so don't try to hide your confusion about Marx's works by claiming those who do understand him are 'worshippers'.3. As a 'materialist', Marcos, you're the Leninist. Why not face up to it? But… you can change.
LBird, your theory is like the study of cellular chemistry, perhaps necessary for a better understanding of medicine, but not required for immediate and urgent medical first-aid to resuscitate a patient.Marxism is the doctrine for the liberation of the working class and Marx defines what are its pre-requisites
Quote:“What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with the particular, historical phases in the development of production, (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.” (Letter from Marx to J. Weydemeyer, 1852)As been pointed out, we are not required to know or even have an opinion on everything, just the necessities for change. A reaason why i have no desire to indulge in discourses over Hegelianism and Marxism. These are luxuries of thought that we cannot afford to expend our time and energy and resources in. The SPGB's task is limited to promote the basic ideas of socialism and to engage in socialist agitation that is aimed at the people and to make that work a priority.The working class, as a class, can only end its exploitation and liberate itself from exploitation by collectivising the means of production. The working class does not own property and only lives by selling its labour for wages. It cannot liberate itself except through the socialisation of private/state property. Your concept of "theory", LBird, is not practical nor desirable and simply superfluous to the needs of our class and fellow workers. It is time to move on and concentrate upon the things that effect us and the things that we can influence and have an effect upon. What Pluto, the Sun is and whether the Moon is made of cheese are irrelevancies to our material lives, nor understanding astro-physics will assist us in building a socialist revolution and transcending capitalism. Let's get on the same game-plan.
alanjjohnstone wrote:… irrelevancies to our material lives…[my bold]This is Engels' theory, alan. You need to accept that you have this 'theory'. Then, you can examine it, and either consciously accept or reject it.The lives that Marx is interested in is 'our ideal-material lives'.That is, the social theory and practice of our class.Whilst you focus on 'material practice', to the pretended exclusion of its preceding 'theory', you will be unable to direct your own class conscious 'practice'.Your 'practice', then, will be bourgeois, individualist, biological sense, 'practice'.
Quote:Sadly, educating a socialist working class is about the only rational activity, for the moment, that is available to a Socialist party bound by its century old Obj and Dop. Which is why Alan wants to water it down.Just to clear up something in that statement that might be misconstrued, TWC, i do NOT seek to water down the educational role of the Socialist Party. But I do believe that the world socialist movement need not be constrained by a century old expression of our object and held to a requirement for its preservation as a "historical document". (i am minded by the later caveat of Marx and Engels that they would have re-written the proposed reform measures but considered the entire Manifesto a historic document, not to be changed. How simpler it may have been if they had indeed re-edited and re-phrased the Manifesto when political conditions had changed) As someone who considers the value of the materialist conception of history, the evolution of social systems may have been hastened by the contributions of Karl Marx and the Socialist Party of Great Britain but that evolution would be a process which would have existed and continued without them. Some may well argue that socialism has been hindered by Marx and the SPGB. The only counter to such accusations is that there own failures to achieve any substantial progress casts doubt on the validity of their analysis.
Material – synonyms:physical, corporeal, tangible, nonspiritual, mundane, worldly, earthly, secular, temporal, concrete, real, solid, substantial
Quote:irrelevancies to our material livesI fear my belly over-rides my mind on so many occasions and i think that it is the motor when we discuss society and social change.
LBird wrote:Marcos wrote:And you have not answered your ? You are speaking in the name of the world working class. It sounds like Lenin who indicated that Marx was able to explain everything that exists under the sun1. I'm a worker, arguing that workers' democracy is essential to the revolutionary proletariat. The world working class can reject that, but then they will be politically disarmed. That is their choice.2. Why keep trotting out the old canard that I say that 'Marx was infallible'? I've answered this accusation, that you constantly make, several times now. Why not read what I write? Marx was a shit writer, who contradicted himself, and he certainly wasn't 'able to explain everything under the sun'. Now, I've said that yet again, so don't try to hide your confusion about Marx's works by claiming those who do understand him are 'worshippers'.3. As a 'materialist', Marcos, you're the Leninist. Why not face up to it? But… you can change.
And now you are sending me to grammar school. Anybody that does not agree with your thoughts does not know what is talking about, so, I have been confused for more than 45 years. You are accusing everybody around here of belonging to different tendency, except Marxism or socialism. You are worshipping Marx and then you said, he did contradicts himself, so, im what foot are you standing on ? I tink you are very ambivalent
LBird wrote:This is Engels' theory, alan. You need to accept that you have this 'theory'. Then, you can examine it, and either consciously accept or reject it.Prove it! OH wait idealists don't need proof.
LBird wrote:This is Engels' theory, alan. You need to accept that you have this 'theory'. Then, you can examine it, and either consciously accept or reject it.Prove it! OH wait idealists don't need proof.
LBird wrote:No, Marcos, 'idealism-materialism' is 'theory and practice'.Prove it!You are an idealist dreamer so you don't need proof just whatever you can think up
LBird wrote:Marcos wrote:Antoher materialist-idealist said that Marx is the practice converted into a theory,No, Marcos, 'idealism-materialism' is 'theory and practice'.That's the whole point. There isn't a 'non-theoretical' practice which produces 'theory'. That's (supposed) 'induction'.Putting 'practice' first is an ideological and political move, to allow the (supposed) 'practitioners' to hide their own theory, and thus present their own pre-existing theory as a result of 'un-ideological' practice.That's why it was Lenin's chosen method. He pretended to 'Know Matter' without any prior theory, and claimed he was simply theorising 'objective activity'. He was a liar, an elitist, and a danger to workers' democracy.As Marx warned, in his Theses on Feuerbach, all materialists must do this. It's the nature of 'materialism'. It's a bourgeois philosophy for elites.Dunayevskaya seems to sense this, but was never able to draw the correct political conclusion. That is, workers' democracy.
What I am indicating is that there are not homogenities of thoughts among the so called materialist-idealists like you
Marcos wrote:What I am indicating is that there are not homogenities of thoughts among the so called materialist-idealists like youYou really should put your glasses on, Marcos!What I write is 'idealists-materialists', but I know that 'facts' play little part in the philosophical method of the 'materialists', like you.Just like Lenin, they like to 're-write' to suit their own political purposes – hey, Marcos, that can be your job under your 'materialist' regime – you can 're-write' history, too, not just my words.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.