the difference between Marxism and original communist theory/ideology
- This topic has 410 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:
"There is something out there that's independent of our minds, the "outside world" if you like, statements about which are either true or false according to a particular theory of truth. But, as statements are the product of minds, it can't be said "truth" or "falsity" are independent of minds."But it can be said that things exist without the knowledge of humans? Like, the planet Mars would still exist even if no human knew about it?
Yes, of course, there would be some phenomena which we now call Mars even if we didn't. I don't think Marx subscribed to the view that there was no "external reality" before the human mind evolved than he did to the "20 trillion flies can't be wrong" theory of truth. If he had, his critics would have had a field day.
ALB wrote:I don't think Marx subscribed to the view that there was no "external reality" before the human mind evolved…He didn't, and neither do I.He called this 'external reality' inorganic nature, and it is an ingredient into social theory and practice.The difference in the ideologies of Engels' (and your) 'materialism', and Marx's (and my) 'idealism-materialism', is that the former sees 'external reality' 'as it is', outside of social activity (labour), whereas the latter sees 'external reality' 'as an input' into social activity (labour).Thus, for Marx, 'external reality' can only be known by our creative theory and practice, by which we transform an 'ingredient' into a 'reality-for-us', and a world we create and can change. This is a socio-historical notion of 'our reality', rather than the 'Eternal Knowledge' or 'Truth' posited by 'materialism', which pretends to 'discover' a once-and-forever 'Truth', which it then merely contemplates eternally. Like 'Mars'.
ALB wrote:… than he did to the "20 trillion flies can't be wrong" theory of truth. If he had, his critics would have had a field day.Once again, this is the materialist account of a 'democratic theory of truth', and shows the elitist contempt for the developmental abilities of the proletariat, which ALB (and I'll accept unwittingly) likens to mass of flies.Since ALB implies 6 billion workers in a socialist society can be wrong, he must clearly have an idea of what the 'expert elite', who will 'know' that the 6 billion are 'wrong', looks like. I wish he'd tell us who this elite is. Perhaps 'academics' or 'intellectuals' (like Searle, who DJP erroneously looks towards for his ideology, rather than Marx).Maarx argued that socialism can only be brought about by the democratic wishes and actions of the majority.That is, the "20 trillion flies can't be wrong" actually is his 'theory of truth'.
SocialistPunk wrote:It's all relative then.Yes, depending upon the mode of production.Just as Marx argued.
LBird wrote:He called this 'external reality' inorganic nature, and it is an ingredient into social theory and practice.Is this ingredient uniform or differentiated? Are there things we cannot do with this ingredient?
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:He called this 'external reality' inorganic nature, and it is an ingredient into social theory and practice.Is this ingredient uniform or differentiated?
We 'differentiate'. That is, humans are the active side in this relationship, as Marx argued, in his Theses on Feuerbach.
YMS wrote:Are there things we cannot do with this ingredient?This can only be answered by social theory and practice, so any answer would also be historical, and related to the 'social production' of any particular 'mode of production'.These axioms are all Marx's: a 'social theory and practice' which changes over time, and which is understood in relation to various 'modes of social production'.
LBird wrote:We 'differentiate'. That is, humans are the active side in this relationship, as Marx argued, in his Theses on Feuerbach.So, erm, what role does this ingredient play? Does it have any properties?
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:We 'differentiate'. That is, humans are the active side in this relationship, as Marx argued, in his Theses on Feuerbach.So, erm, what role does this ingredient play? Does it have any properties?
The 'ingredient' is, err.. an 'ingredient'. Do I have to provide another term/phrase for you? Input into the active side?'Properties' of 'reality-for-us' are a social product of our theory and practice.If you want 'properties in themselves', YMS, you'll have to look to Engels' 'materialism', and not Marx's ideas about us humans creating our object.That's your choice, of course, but not mine. I prefer Marx.
When I put an ingredient into a cake, it has properties: sugar sweetens, flour thickens, water smooths, different ingredients do different things.
Young Master Smeet wrote:When I put an ingredient into a cake, it has properties: sugar sweetens, flour thickens, water smooths, different ingredients do different things.Yes, but we're discussing epistemology and Marx's views on social production, not 'Mary Berry bakes a cake'.As I've said previously, you keep trying to investigate the 'properties' of things outside of their ingredient relationship to creative humans, as do all Engelsian 'materialists', but I wish to continue with Marx's method.You seem to be trying to understand Marx, without Marx's ideas being involved. I don't know why you just don't openly say this to everyone. It would make the discussion easier for the uninitiated to follow.Put simply, there are two competing ideologies in play in this debate, Marx's and Engels'.
Mais non, mon chere, I am trying o explore Chuckies views. What is the role of inorganic nature if all the qualityare attributable to human activity. A sculptor works with the properties of the marble, but if the stone is undifferentiated, and only gains it's qualties from the sculptor, then the stone does not exist, n'est pas?WEngels never existed. He is a delusion of historians.
ALB wrote:Actually, Sympo, while this theory, "naive realism" if you like, is alright for everyday living, it's not really adequate. Our minds don't simply reflect or photograph the world out there "as it really is".L.Bird wrote:The difference in the ideologies of Engels' (and your) 'materialism', and Marx's (and my) 'idealism-materialism', is that the former sees 'external reality' 'as it is', outside of social activity (labour),…YMS, I don't know why you bother to engage with this serial, and possibly congenital and attention-seeking, liar.
ALB wrote:ALB wrote:Actually, Sympo, while this theory, "naive realism" if you like, is alright for everyday living, it's not really adequate. Our minds don't simply reflect or photograph the world out there "as it really is".L.Bird wrote:The difference in the ideologies of Engels' (and your) 'materialism', and Marx's (and my) 'idealism-materialism', is that the former sees 'external reality' 'as it is', outside of social activity (labour),…YMS, I don't know why you bother to engage with this serial, and possibly congenital and attention-seeking, liar.
[my bold]You just can't help yourself, can you, and debate the philosophical issues, without insults?Here we go again.ALB, you're a clueless dickhead, who apparently is illiterate, and congenitally unable to control yourself.Try reading Marx, you wanker.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.