the difference between Marxism and original communist theory/ideology

[Capitalist Pig]

There seems to be a major division in ideology.  correct me if I'm wrong. One side believes that truth(or science) is entirely objective and the other side believes that it is entirely subjective? 

[LBird]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

There seems to be a major division in ideology.  correct me if I'm wrong. One side believes that truth(or science) is entirely objective and the other side believes that it is entirely subjective? 

Not quite, CP.There are three positions:1. 'Entirely objective' – this is 'materialism'; this argues that there is THE 'scientific method', a single way, usuable by individual geniuses or small elites, which gives an 'entirely objective' account of 'reality', as it simply 'is', 'out there'.2. 'Entirely subjective' – this is 'idealism'; this argues that each individual has their own 'scientific method', that 'anything goes', that every individual gives an 'entirely subjective' account of 'their own reality', as they simply see it, in their own heads.3. 'Subject produces object' – this is Marx's 'idealism-materialism'; this argues that each society with different types of production, produces its 'social reality'. For a democratic society like socialism, any social production must be democratically organised, and so no individuals or small groups (geniuses or not) can produce 'reality' on their own. 'Reality' is socially produced, and socialism's scientific method must reflect our building of our 'social reality'.Hope this helps.

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

There seems to be a major division in ideology.  correct me if I'm wrong. One side believes that truth(or science) is entirely objective and the other side believes that it is entirely subjective? 

 Why can  it not be both?  I think this debate on epistemology has been somewhat sterile.  For example, in response to Tim's question  " Do you believe that matter has an existence independent of your perception of it?", LBird confidently asserted that it does not. Now clearly this is nonsense. Presumably LBird accepts that before human beings evolved on this planet or indeed before life and living things appeared, there was matter. So in a formal sense obviously matter exists independently  of our perception of it..  In fact, LBird's construction "idealism-materialism" makes absolutely no sense if this were not the case. ""Matter" would merely be a species of ideas and what LBird would really be advocating would be "idealism-idealism" What LBird was really trying to say, I think, is that our understanding of matter – scientific truth – is never free of, but is always mediated by. our ideological or subjective preconceptions.  Or if you like,- science is never value free.  As LBird colourfully put it *the rocks don't speak to us" in some proximate sense.  That much is true.  I think it was Popper who made the point that in order to observe we need to know what to look for and that presupposes a rudimentary model of the world we carry around in our heads to begin with.  The" facts" we perceive are elicited and structured according to this model. In other words, the theory precedes the facts though it can be modified by the facts Positivism is the contention that rocks can speak to us directly,  that we can have a purely objective knowledge about them.  Despite LBird's claim to the contrary I don't see any evidence here of a positivistic view of science being promoted on this forum.  What I do see is claims to the effect that matter does indeed have an an existence independent of our perception of it.  But that is not positivism and LBird has muddied the water considerably by suggesting that it is

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

 For example, in response to Tim's question  " Do you believe that matter has an existence independent of your perception of it?", LBird confidently asserted that it does not. Now clearly this is nonsense. Presumably LBird accepts that before human beings evolved on this planet or indeed before life and living things appeared, there was matter. So in a formal sense obviously matter exists independently  of our perception of it.

'Matter' is obviously speaking directly to robbo, here.robbo clearly states that 'matter exists independently'.So, he clearly arguing, unlike Marx, that 'matter is not a social product'.So, where does robbo's ideology fit within the three-fold outline that I gave to CP earlier?Happily enough, robbo himself proceeds to tell us.

robbo203 wrote:

Positivism is the contention that rocks [ie. 'matter'] can speak to us directly,  that we can have a purely objective knowledge about them.  Despite LBird's claim to the contrary I don't see any evidence here of a positivistic view of science being promoted on this forum.  What I do see is claims to the effect that matter does indeed have an an existence independent of our perception of it.  But that is not positivism and LBird has muddied the water considerably by suggesting that it is

[my bold and insert]This claim for 'independent matter' is positivism (which is another name, CP, for 'entirely objective', number 1 in our list).robbo is confused about this, because he unconsciously holds to the ideology of 'materialism' (or, positivism, or, objectivism), and so can't bring himself to agree with Marx's ideas about 'social production' (number 3 in our list).Marx does not talk about 'matter' (that was Engels' insertion); Marx talks about 'material production'.'Material' does not mean 'matter'; for Marx 'material' meant social (as opposed to 'ideal', meaning divine). Marx talks of human labour upon 'inorganic nature' which produces 'organic nature' (ie, for some social groups, 'matter'). 'Inorganic nature' is not 'matter'. That was Engels' mistake, to call Marx's category of 'inorganic nature' as 'matter'.CP, you have to choose which ideology you wish to employ – 1, 2 or 3.robbo is choosing 1; Marx and I choose 3.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 For example, in response to Tim's question  " Do you believe that matter has an existence independent of your perception of it?", LBird confidently asserted that it does not. Now clearly this is nonsense. Presumably LBird accepts that before human beings evolved on this planet or indeed before life and living things appeared, there was matter. So in a formal sense obviously matter exists independently  of our perception of it.

'Matter' is obviously speaking directly to robbo, here.robbo clearly states that 'matter exists independently'.So, he clearly arguing, unlike Marx, that 'matter is not a social product'. 

 You are very muddled LBird.  Youve not really grasped the point at all and you misread Marx completely.  When Marx talks of matter being a social product he is referring to our apprehension of matter. Meaning we cannot understand matter in a purely objective sense. Our understanding of matter is conditioned by our preconception of it. It is in this special sense only that Marx suggests matter is not independent of us.  He is referring to the concept of matter, how we grasp it, intellectually speaking. Marx is definitely not saying, as you are, that matter itself does not exist outside of the ideas we hold about matter – only that we can never understand or grasp matter outside of these ideas which are themselves socially produced.  What you are claiming  is a ludicrous distortion of Marx.  In effect you are saying that before human beings existed and entertained thoughts about matter, there was no matter and you are atrributing this view – laughably – to Marx! TWC is right.  You are a straightforward Berkelean idealist, not an "idealist materialist"

[robbo203]

Since LBird has claimed that  matter does NOT have  an existence independent of our perception of it,  I would be interested to know whether LBird believes anything at all existed before the evolution of human consciousness and our ability to perceive.  If LBird seriously believes that this could not possibly be matter since matter could not exist independently of our ability to perceive it,  could  he please explain what exactly it was that existed prior to our existence as a species, if not matter? I await his answer with bated breath (sarcasm alert)

[twc]

LBird’s descriptions of materialism, idealism and Marx are caricatures that support his assertion that epistemology generates political power, an idealist assertion.For LBird, consciousness is not consciousness of an external [that-sided] world, but is only consciousness of the inner [this-sided] world of our own making by thought.To that extent LBird adopts a neo-Berkeleian position on the relation between human consciousness and an ultimately unknowable world beyond it.Marx’s ViewWe know Marx’s contrary position from two familiar sources.Theses on Feuerbach — Thesis II“The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question.Man must prove the truth—i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice.The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question.”Theses on Feuerbach — Thesis VIII“All social life is essentially practical.All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.”German Ideology — Carver and Blank, p. 79“…from the moment when a division of material and mental labour takes place… consciousness is able to conceive of itself as something other than the consciousness of existing practice…”  in Engels’s hand.“…coincides with the first form of ideology.  Priests.”  Added in Marx's hand.Scientific ‘Truth’From the perspective of Marx in the 1840s, objective truth can be nothing other than the power of man’s consciousness-of-his-practice in the world put into practice in the world.Of course, the power of practice can never be absolute.  So also for truth.But social life is essentially practical:Man—rationally—ever weighs up the risks of getting things wrong under the rational necessity of getting things done.That is an unavoidable condition of all human practice.  So also for truth.Practicing scientists rarely claim to objective truth:Scientists are content to stand by the power of their theoretical consciousness-of-their-practice when they put it into practice.This power ranges from the microscopic sub-atomic world to the macroscopic universal, over deep time and deep space, through the inanimate to the biological—conscious practical efficacy in the extraordinarily wonderful [that-sided] world.No other profession than science comes within a bull’s roar for the efficacy of its consciousness-of-its-practice when it puts it into practice.On the contrary, non-scientific professions—like those tasked with running capital—have a track record for the abysmal failure of the efficacy of their non-consciousness-of-their-practice when they put it into practice.Yet ignorant non-scientist pontificator LBird pleases himself with the smug assertion that scientists haven’t a clue about what they are doing.Of course, they wouldn’t be conducting scientific research if they already knew everything they were actively investigating.But LBird doesn’t mean ignorance as benign as that.  He viscerally detests scientists as ignoramuses, while accusing them of malicious plans against all mankind.  Putting all scientists under political control is what matters to him.Scientific EfficacyPlease note that Marx is here discussing scientific power and not political power.He is discussing the efficacy of our consciousness-of-practice when we put it into practice.  As such it is the common intellectual and practical heritage of us all!We all survive in the [that-sided] world by exercising such efficacy and refining such consciousness.  The only difference is that scientists exercise that efficacy and refine that consciousness systematically.Bishop BerkeleyMarx makes no claim about objective truth being determined by subjective assessment.On the contrary: the objective truth of “this-side” is determined “that-side” — Marx the materialist.Marx is totally opposed to endorsing opinion on scientific matters [see Marx’s contempt for scientific dilettantism in his 1870s letter outlining his plan to set up a Journal of Scientific Socialism].Marx would have scorned the faintest hint of scientific adjudication by people who have not practiced in the [that-sided] world, whose accessibility they have been socially brow beaten into denying.Marx never ever in his wildest dreams endorsed Bishop George Berkeley when he spoke of objective truth.

[lindanesocialist]

According to his own science, close your eyes and Lbird will no longer exists. God is the master perceiver. Without him there is no matter and therefore no LBird.Case closed 

[Anonymous]

L Bird is just like the Marxist-Humanists: Materialist-idealists philosopher, or an idealist.  Dunayeskaya wrote that Marx was one of the most materialist of the idealist philosophers, and one of most idealist of the materialist philosophers, based on that premise she said that Lenin was reading Hegel from a materialist-idealist point of view, an ambivalent philosopher: Materialist-idealist, Idealist-Materialist. I think that we have better issues to pay attention at the present time, this is just a wasting of time

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

L Bird is just like the Marxist-Humanists: Materialist-idealists philosopher, or an idealist.  Dunayeskaya wrote that Marx was one of the most materialist of the idealist philosophers, and one of most idealist of the materialist philosophers, based on that premise she said that Lenin was reading Hegel from a materialist-idealist point of view, an ambivalent philosopher: Materialist-idealist, Idealist-Materialist. I think that we have better issues to pay attention at the present time, this is just a wasting of time

[ my bold]On the contrary, mcolome1, this is a political issue of supreme importance.Lenin was a 'materialist', because 'materialism' provides an ideological basis for Leninist politics.It seems clear by what has been said by SPGB members and supporters on this thread, that 'materialism' denies power to the working class, and places power in the hands of an elite.Marx argued for workers' power in all politics, and he wasn't a 'materialist'.'Inorganic nature' is not 'matter'.'Materialists' will not address these epistemological questions, or assign any democratic control to scientific production, because they assert that 'matter' just 'is', 'out there', waiting to be contemplated, and 'matter' determines, not the producers.'Materialists' always fall back upon an 'individualist, biological' epistemology (of the 19th century bourgeoisie and liberalism) where an 'individual' can tell what 'matter' 'is' by touching. Tim earlier gave no social or historical account of 'matter', but just referred to his individual activity. Now Linda is doing similarly. Their questions are always based upon 'individual' scenarios. Marx claimed that 'senses' are socially-created, and so any account of 'matter' must be a socio-historical one (like I've given) which allows us to change it.While you look to 'materialism', mcolome1, you'll remain trapped in a form of Leninist politics.

[Capitalist Pig]

I am just so confused

[LBird]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

I am just so confused

The first thing that you have to do, CP, is decide for yourself whether the two-fold or three-fold model makes most sense to you.That is, whether there are only two alternatives (just 'idealism' and 'materialism', as Engels argued), or whether there are three alternatives (the third being 'idealism-materialism', that Marx produced by a unifying of 'idealism' and 'materialism').Your choice on this issue will determine your further understanding about the wider issues of epistemology and democracy.

[Young Master Smeet]

 In post #328

LBird wrote:

Marx, Capital Vol. 1, p. 169, wrote:

…categories…are forms of thought which are socially valid, and therefore objective, for…this…mode of social production.

'Objectivity' is determined by its 'social validity'.

I think Lbird is quoting the Penguin edition here, in the online (older) translation it's:

Chaz wrote:

The categories of bourgeois economy consist of such like forms. They are forms of thought expressing with social validity the conditions and relations of a definite, historically determined mode of production, viz., the production of commodities. The whole mystery of commodities, all the magic and necromancy that surrounds the products of labour as long as they take the form of commodities, vanishes therefore, so soon as we come to other forms of production.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S4The point is, Marx is talking about commodity fetishism, and the commodity fetishistic society.  So, Lbird quote is not saying that in all societies and everywhere social categories give rise to objective reality, but that in commodity society, social categories take the form of the objects of society.Indeed, in the preceeeding paragraph, Marx makes this interesting point:

Charlie wrote:

Man’s reflections on the forms of social life, and consequently, also, his scientific analysis of those forms, take a course directly opposite to that of their actual historical development. He begins, post festum, with the results of the process of development ready to hand before him. The characters that stamp products as commodities, and whose establishment is a necessary preliminary to the circulation of commodities, have already acquired the stability of natural, self-understood forms of social life, before man seeks to decipher, not their historical character, for in his eyes they are immutable, but their meaning.

Compare also with Hegel's dictum that the owl of Minerva spreads her wings with the dying of the light. Further, from, the same section:

Quote:

 The religious reflex of the real world can, in any case, only then finally vanish, when the practical relations of every-day life offer to man none but perfectly intelligible and reasonable relations with regard to his fellowmen and to Nature. The life-process of society, which is based on the process of material production, does not strip off its mystical veil until it is treated as production by freely associated men, and is consciously regulated by them in accordance with a settled plan. This, however, demands for society a certain material ground-work or set of conditions of existence which in their turn are the spontaneous product of a long and painful process of development.

Now, Marx frequently refers to Nature, which is a synonym of reality/external world/physical objects.  Nature can only really mean 'that which happens without the interventiopn of Man'.So, thanks to Lbird for point out a section of Marx which utterly disproves what he has been saying here for so long.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

 So, thanks to Lbird for point out a section of Marx which utterly disproves what he has been saying here for so long.

It will do, from the perspective of the 'materialists'.That's my point for CP.They need to decide, first, whether they align with 'idealism', 'materialism' or 'idealism-materialism'.You're a 'materialist', YMS. CP needs to decide whether to follow your ideology, or not.'Materialism' claims to 'know objective Truth', and so hides its own perspective.

YMS wrote:

Nature can only really mean 'that which happens without the interventiopn of Man'.

I don't, but then I agree with Marx about 'social production', and not the 'Objective Truth' of the 'materialists'.The 'intervention of humanity' can't be removed from the 'nature' that we produce.Because the 'materialists' can conceive of a 'nature without the intervention of man', they can conceive of removing 'democracy' from 'social production'.Lenin shared the same distaste for workers' democracy, and their creation of their world, their organic nature.You're simply an elitist, YMS, who claims to know this 'nature without human intervention', and you must therefore have a method which allows your elite to know, but which is not available to workers, otherwise you'd agree to a vote, on what this 'interventionless nature' is.

[SocialistPunk]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

I am just so confused

Your're not the only one CP.As mcolome1 has pointed out on a few occasions.

mcolome1 wrote:

I think that we have better issues to pay attention at the present time, this is just a wasting of time.

[Author]

Posts