the difference between Marxism and original communist theory/ideology

[Young Master Smeet]

OK, my ideology is Hebridean Exophagism.That means I never get tired of being wrong.  Other axioms involve a fundamentakl disbelief in the historical existence of Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, and that knowledge emerges from social theory and practice.So, lets go.

[Bijou Drains]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

OK, my ideology is Hebridean Exophagism.That means I never get tired of being wrong.  Other axioms involve a fundamentakl disbelief in the historical existence of Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, and that knowledge emerges from social theory and practice.So, lets go.

Mornington Crescent?

[Sympo]

ALB wrote:

 "The first point to note is that the Socialist Party does not lay down a 'correct' theory of 'truth'."Oh yes I understand that, I was just wondering about your personal opinion, what you believed to be "correct".

[alanjjohnstone]

I came across this thought on my web travels and thought it was of some import. 

Quote:

…incompatible political-economic cosmologies and corresponding conceptual frameworks collide. It is as if Aristotle were to request of Newton that he clarify his conception of motion, or force, or mass. But, in order that Aristotle comprehend Newton’s response, Newton must employ the language and concepts of Aristotelian physics: prime matter, substantial form, final causality and the rest. Can’t be done. And in politics, there is not only conceptual incommensurability, but normative dissonance as well. The liberal conception of equality is quite different from the radically egalitarian notion.This is no mere matter of “difference of opinion” or opposing beliefs. What separates genuine egalitarians and democrats from the mainstream goes much deeper. Political education is an essential part of organizing and movement building. It is not sufficient to expose people to more and different facts and “information.” That’s necessary, but not sufficient. It’s about a very different way of thinking about politics and economics, including that we inhabit a very different world, a different political universe, from what the mainstream political commentariat put across in every word they utter.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/08/class-dismissed-identity-politics-to-the-front-of-the-line/Importance of ideology again in understaanding, isn't it?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I came across this thought on my web travels and thought it was of some import. 

Quote:

This is no mere matter of “difference of opinion” or opposing beliefs. What separates genuine egalitarians and democrats from the mainstream goes much deeper. Political education is an essential part of organizing and movement building. It is not sufficient to expose people to more and different facts and “information.” That’s necessary, but not sufficient. It’s about a very different way of thinking about politics and economics, including that we inhabit a very different world, a different political universe, from what the mainstream political commentariat put across in every word they utter.

Importance of ideology again in understaanding, isn't it?

But 'ideology' has no importance for those who've accepted the central myth of bourgeois science, that it is not 'ideological', but a 'method' that ensures a 'true' account of 'reality outside of human creative activity'. This is the complete opposite of Marx's views on 'social production', of course.In fact, your quote could be slightly edited to say… 

Quote:

This is no mere matter of “difference of opinion” or opposing beliefs. What separates genuine egalitarians and democrats from the Engelsist Materialists goes much deeper. Political education is an essential part of organizing and movement building. It is not sufficient to expose people to more and different facts and “information.” That’s necessary, but not sufficient. It’s about a very different way of thinking about politics and economics, including that we inhabit a very different world, a different political universe, from what the Engelsist Materialist political commentariat put across in every word they utter.

…and it would help clarify even further.'Materialism' denies democracy. 'Materialists' are elitists.Every word that the 'materialists' here utter, makes that plain.'Materialism' is neither egalitarian nor democratic.It can't be the ideological basis of socialism and workers' power.And so, the 'materialists' deny that they have an ideology.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

'Materialism' denies democracy. 'Materialists' are elitists.

Which is itself an undemocratic proposition: shirley we can vote to make materialism democratic?

[rodmanlewis]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

'Materialism' denies democracy. 'Materialists' are elitists.

Which is itself an undemocratic proposition: shirley we can vote to make materialism democratic?

Materialists don't seek to impose their materialism on other workers. Quite the opposite, they seek to persuade other workers to embrace materialism, to share a world unfettered by, often, self-imposed ignorance.

[LBird]

rodmanlewis wrote:

LBird wrote:

'Materialism' denies democracy. 'Materialists' are elitists.

Materialists don't seek to impose their materialism on other workers. Quite the opposite, they seek to persuade other workers to embrace materialism, to share a world unfettered by, often, self-imposed ignorance.

I have to assume that you're genuine, rodmanlewis, in your 'persuasion of workers'. So I'll try to explain why you're barking up the wrong tree.If socialism is 'democratic workers', and materialism is 'undemocratic elitism', then your advice would read:"Elitist Materialists don't seek to impose their elite materialism on other democratic workers. Quite the opposite, they seek to persuade other democratic workers to embrace elitist materialism, to share a world unfettered by, often, self-imposed (ie. by democratic workers themselves) ignorance."The assumption that 'ignorance' is 'self-imposed' is a staggeringly elitist assumption.No mention of 'ignorance being socially produced', or by whom this 'ignorance' is 'produced', but a simple elitist assumption that the 'materialists' have a 'truth', that any un-ignorant workers would clearly choose.The very opposite is true, rodmanlewis.The 'materialists' are completely ignorant of the socio-historic emergence of 'bourgeois science', and its ruling class assumptions, which are the ruling class ideas which tell workers that they are too ignorant to create their own 'truth' of their world, and the 'materialists' ignore Marx and 'social production', and simply accept the myth that they have been peddled, by the ruling class.So, I'm afraid it's the democratic workers who'll be giving the advice, to the self-imposedly ignorant 'materialists', about how the workers will build socialism, and not the expert elite of the adherents of 'materialism' (the philosophy of the Leninists, naturally).Does this help you discard your own 'self-imposed ignorance'?If you want further help in overthrowing your bourgeois ideology, I can recommend reading Marx.

[rodmanlewis]

LBird wrote:

The assumption that 'ignorance' is 'self-imposed' is a staggeringly elitist assumption.No mention of 'ignorance being socially produced', or by whom this 'ignorance' is 'produced', but a simple elitist assumption that the 'materialists' have a 'truth', that any un-ignorant workers would clearly choose.

What I said is "often, self-imposed", those workers choosing to wallow in the fantasies of religion and others leaving their thinking to political leaders. You can't debate with these people because they have given up their thinking to their priests, mullahs and political leaders. And those workers who try to break free from their political and religious bindings are often not able to on pain of death.The question is "Is the socialist/materialist case a valid one?" Whether you consider it an elitist position is up to you.

[LBird]

rodmanlewis wrote:

The question is "Is the socialist/materialist case a valid one?" Whether you consider it an elitist position is up to you.

[my bold]The problem is, rodmanlewis, that 'socialist' (being democratic) and 'materialist' (being undemocratic) are opposed.Your phrase plays the same role as 'national socialism'; that is, to persuade workers that an expert elite shall dictate to those workers, all in the best interests of those benighted workers (of course, 'best' is determined by the elite, not the workers themselves, who are 'often self-imposedly ignorant').So, it's not my 'considerations' that matter, but what democratic workers would choose: 'democratic socialism' or 'socialist materialism'. What is the 'valid one' for workers building their world? This is not a 'personal choice' (bourgeois method, again, from the materialists), but a political question about class power.[heavy hint to any workers reading: 'socialist materialism' is the ideology of Leninism]

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

The problem is, rodmanlewis, that 'socialist' (being democratic) and 'materialist' (being undemocratic) are opposed.

Is that a statement of fact?

[Wez]

I'm a latecomer to this debate, but is LBird suggesting that Marx was not a materialist? Surely it was his materialist perspective that rescued the dialectical method from Hegel's idealism?

[Brian]

Wez wrote:

I'm a latecomer to this debate, but is LBird suggesting that Marx was not a materialist? Surely it was his materialist perspective that rescued the dialectical method from Hegel's idealism?

Not quite.  He's suggesting that Marx evolved into an idealist-materialist or even a materialist-idealist.  Further he's also proposing we are Lenists because Engles failed to foresee the necessity for the democratic control of all theory.

[Anonymous]

Wez wrote:

I'm a latecomer to this debate, but is LBird suggesting that Marx was not a materialist? Surely it was his materialist perspective that rescued the dialectical method from Hegel's idealism?

Opening up another can of worms I know but see also these previous threads which are really just the tip of the LBird…http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-was-productionist-not-materialisthttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/marx-and-myth-his-materialismhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/long-awaited-materialism-thread

[Anonymous]

Brian wrote:

Wez wrote:

I'm a latecomer to this debate, but is LBird suggesting that Marx was not a materialist? Surely it was his materialist perspective that rescued the dialectical method from Hegel's idealism?

Not quite.  He's suggesting that Marx evolved into an idealist-materialist or even a materialist-idealist.  Further he's also proposing we are Lenists because Engles failed to foresee the necessity for the democratic control of all theory.

Therefore,  he is in agreement with Raya Dunayeskaya who was a Marxist-Humanist. She said that Marx was one of the most idealist of the Materialist, philosopher,s and one of the most Materialist of the  idealist philosophers. She combined Materialism with Idealism. She was a Hegelian and a Leninist, and she rejected some of Engels conceptions

[Author]

Posts