the difference between Marxism and original communist theory/ideology

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Capitalist Pig wrote:

I am just so confused

Your're not the only one CP.

What's so confusing, SP, about YMS claim to know 'interventionless nature'?Either you agree with YMS that there is an 'interventionless nature', which you, too, 'know', or you agree with Marx that 'knowledge' is socially produced, ie. the 'nature we know' is a product of our 'intervention'.What's so difficult for any socialist to understand? 'Social labour' means 'intervention'.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

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.

 I think you are the one that is trapped within your own fanatics ideas, because ,you can not  see that the Marxist- Humanists support the same argument that you have presented here, you should join their organization. I do know what Leninism is, and what Marxism-humanism is  more than you because I was part of both movement.If Marx was not a materialist, then, The German Ideology that was written by Marx and Engels in order to clarify their thought, and a book that I have read several times, was not about materialism,, and it is not a rejection of idealism, and vulgar materialism, therefore, we must reject the materialist conception of history.  Do not make me  laugh because I have a tooth ache, if we are clowns, you must be a jokerYou are not telling me anything new, and you are trying to give lectures to the Socialist Party, an organization that has spent more than one hundred years teaching about socialism, i do not dare to do that, when I am still an amateur despite all the years that I have spent in the working class movementYou are accusing the members of the SPGB to be based on individuals, but you are blaming all the problems of socialism in one individual known as Frederick Engels, an individual that has done more than you for mankind, and you can not even tie his shoelaces, he did not waste his time talking, he invested his time  dedicating his life to the cause of the working class. Continue in your rocking chair contemplating the world, and I would like to say like lawyer: I rest my case, this is only a wasting of time, I have better things to do

[LBird]

Here's a philosophical question for everyone to ponder.If the subject-object relationship must always be maintained, how can 'interventionless nature' exist?Marx (just like the idealists with whom he agreed) maintains the relationship by arguing that the mediating factor between the two is activity. Marx used the term 'social labour' for this category.Thus, he argues that the subject (a social category, not an 'individual') creates its object, by its social activity upon 'inorganic nature'.But this 'inorganic nature' does not 'exist in itself', but only forms an input or ingredient into social labour, which changes it into a human product, our object, 'organic nature'. That is what 'exists-for-humans', what is 'reality-for-us'.The notion of contemplating 'inorganic nature' is meaningless, because, separated from its active side, it doesn't 'exist'. It only comes into existence-for-us as a labour-ingredient, and we immediately change it.This is the heart of Marx's ideas: social production. We are the creator of our world. That's why we can change it.Any other formulation leaves workers passive in the face of 'interventionless nature', at best; and at worst, under the control of a social elite, who do produce an 'organic nature' that is built to their purposes and interests, but hide this with their ideology of 'interventionless nature', the myth of 'Objective Reality' and 'Eternal Truth'.Humans build their world: subject creates its object.

[LBird]

I suppose it saves time, mcolome1, if you just refuse to discuss the issues, and continue to misrepresent me.I've already told you that I'm not an adherent of Dunayevskaya, I think her views are very similar to Lenin's; so, it doesn't surprise me that you've been part of both movements, because they are very similar.Marx's so-called 'materialist conception of history' is nothing to do with 'matter'; by 'material', Marx meant 'human' or 'social', as opposed to 'ideal', relating to divine production.Yes, you are an 'amateur', but so is the entire SPGB, going by what's been written here, so you won't learn anything soon.The SPGB members here do base their epistemological views on 'individuals' and their 'biological senses': they keep saying so, it's not me accusing them of doing so.I've never blamed Engels for 'all the problems of socialism': I argued that he, like you, was an amateur, and had no idea whatsoever about epistemology.The rest of your post is just the usual evasion of the issues, combined with the usual personal abuse.Does it say something in the handbook 'The ideology of materialism', that you seem to have as your bible, that personal abuse of Marxists is the only way to deal with those who question your elitism?If you're 'wasting your time', then give posting a miss, and try reading the debates and forming an opinion about the social production of 'organic nature'. You've clearly got lots to learn.

[lindanesocialist]

LBird wrote:

This is the heart of Marx's ideas: social production. We are the creator of our world. That's why we can change it.

So we created the Sun and the moon? Or did they exist before humans?

[LBird]

lindanesocialist wrote:

LBird wrote:

This is the heart of Marx's ideas: social production. We are the creator of our world. That's why we can change it.

So we created the Sun and the moon? Or did they exist before humans?

You're not very good at this epistemology lark, are you, linda?I've already explained what 'existence' is, so if you insist that the world we create 'existed' before we created it, you'll have to tell us how you know that, and who did create this 'existence'.I'd suggest that you 'know' this because someone has told you so (you're a social individual, as Marx says), and you'll have to argue that as humans are not the creator of their world (which goes against what Marx argued, about social production), then a god was the creator.It all fits with Religious Materialism, linda. Don't listen to them, if you want workers to build socialism. Otherwise, you'll hand power over to an elite. The elite who told you the story about Religious Materialism.

[lindanesocialist]

LBird wrote:

lindanesocialist wrote:

LBird wrote:

This is the heart of Marx's ideas: social production. We are the creator of our world. That's why we can change it.

So we created the Sun and the moon? Or did they exist before humans?

You're not very good at this epistemology lark, are you, linda?I've already explained what 'existence' is, so if you insist that the world we create 'existed' before we created it, you'll have to tell us how you know that, and who did create this 'existence'.I'd suggest that you 'know' this because someone has told you so (you're a social individual, as Marx says), and you'll have to argue that as humans are not the creator of their world (which goes against what Marx argued, about social production), then a god was the creator.It all fits with Religious Materialism, linda. Don't listen to them, if you want workers to build socialism. Otherwise, you'll hand power over to an elite. The elite who told you the story about Religious Materialism.

Don't need any long words to answer my quetion. Do yo believe we created the world?  

[LBird]

lindanesocialist wrote:

Don't need any long words to answer my quetion.

No, but apparently you need continued repetition: it seems to be a party attribute, the inability to read what workers write, and the substitution of other terms.

Quote:

Do yo believe we created the world? 

Little words, linda, once again:Humans …create …their …world.This is Marx's argument, and I agree with him.If you don't agree with Marx's social production, you should say openly just who you agree with. I'll bet it's Engels and the 'materialists'.You're fishing in deep waters, linda, and I'm trying to help you. Just like I did Vin.

[robbo203]

robbo203 wrote:

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)

 Im still waiting for LBird's answer. Why is he so coy about providing an answer?

[LBird]

Another consideration: Pannekoek argues that we create the so-called 'laws of nature'.Is Pannekoek correct, or do humans simply discover eternal 'laws of nature', that were 'out there' all the time, and we just contemplate them?Put in the epistemological terms that I discussed earlier, are 'laws of nature' 'objective', or are they a product of the subject-object relationship?Pannekoek seems to agree with Marx, that the 'socially objective' laws of nature are a socio-historical product, which we can therefore change.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Im still waiting for LBird's answer. Why is he so coy about providing an answer?

You'll have to read my answer, robbo, as opposed to ignoring it, and substituting your own terms for Marx's.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

Im still waiting for LBird's answer. Why is he so coy about providing an answer?

You'll have to read my answer, robbo, as opposed to ignoring it, and substituting your own terms for Marx's.

 Where is your answer? It does not appear to be on this forum.  Can you refer me to your post explaining what existed before human consciousness evolved, if not matter (given that you have openly  stated that matter could not exist independently of our ability to perceive it,)

[Bijou Drains]

L Bird is like a person who thinks that learning to play the guitar will make s/he look windswept and interesting. So of s/he goes and spends 25 years learning to play the guitar (L Bird's timescale). The trouble is that after 25 years all s/he can manage to play is a pretty shaky version of "Stairway to Heaven". Undeterred by this fact, our noble guitarist decides to show the world the talent that s/he believes makes them a cross between Hendrix and Kossoff. Despite the less than startling receptiion her/ his little act brings our guitarist is still convinced they are a musical genius and with this in mind continues to play their piss poor version of "Stairway to Heaven" over and over again, what was once sympathy, now becomes derisio , but still "Stairway to bloody Heaven" over and over and over and over…………….The other possibility is that this thread is part of an absurdist art installation L Bird is working on and that these posts will end up being exhibited at the Tate Modern, before being sold off to the same silly fucker that bought Tracey Emin's hacky dorty scratcher

[lindanesocialist]

'The philosophers have already interpreted the world'. Stop wasting your time on this. I can't believe the party is still stuck with Berkeley.Workers are starving, unemployed, homeless  and landless. Reach out to them, me , us . The idealists are the past, we have our material conditions and interests  to deal with. Shelter, food, clothes etc etc. LBird is a troll and  a time wasterIf you are not arguing pointlessly with LBird, you are attacking and suspending  members trying to connect with the real issues that concern the working class Make this a workers forum and we might move forward.   

[LBird]

robbo, Tim , linda… please read what I've written.

[Author]

Posts