The gravity of the situation

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, we have the nonsense about 'idealism' and Kant.

Indeed, we do. For instance

Quote:

'Inorganic nature' is an unknowable 'in itself' ingredient for active human social theory and practice.

Quote:

No matter how many times I repeat that 'inorganic nature' is an 'ingredient into activity', your ideology tells you to ask 'But, what is it, when it's not an 'ingredient into activity?'.

This theory that "ultimate reality" is an unobservable and so unknowable Ding an sich is pure Kant, which opens the door to all sorts of idealist and theist views.

[my bold]And, indeed, as even Engels said, also to a Marxist view. Marx came from the German Idealist tradition. The difference is Kant's passivity, as against Marx's activity.

ALB wrote:

You are one and it is dishonest as well as ignorant to try to saddle Marx and certainly Pannekoek with such a view.

No, I'm the one who is both honest and educated, unlike you, and point out the socio-historical context of Marx and Pannekoek's views, also unlike you.

ALB wrote:

Why not admit it instead of spreading lies about us being crude mechanical materialists who think that the mind is merely a mirror reflecting what's out there?

I'm not 'spreading lies' about the SPGB, I'm trying to teach you about Marx, Engels, Idealism, Materialism, Marx's unity, the differences between them, and where politically those philosophical differences lead.Youse are crude materialists, even you said so yourself, when asked about what the constituents of 'means of production' actually were. You said 'material' things, and not ideas.And if we don't create our physics, then physics must be a mirrorlike reflection on 'out there'.I'm the one saying that maths, physics and all science is a socio-historical creation.Youse are the ones arguing that these are 'discovering' what is simply 'to hand'. If that's true, then, once discovered, these 'things at hand' must have always been 'out there', simply waiting to be 'discovered'.If we create maths, physics and science, we can change them. These social activities do not 'discover' an 'objective reality' sitting 'out there'. The present bourgeois maths, etc., give us a picture of a world created by the bourgeoisie. If we accept that picture as 'eternally true', an 'objective account', an image of 'out there', how do we change it in the future?FFS, ALB, you must be able to tell the difference between an educated critic with whom you disagree (at the present), and a dishonest liar.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Believe me, comrade, that 'distortion', which I clearly added, was done to clarify for you exactly what the implications, for human activity, the passive formulation 'finding at hand', actually are.

Balonie!  Your arguments are based on lies about others. As a materialist I see the human mind as activeCan you explain why the working class did not create socialism 1000 years ago? You wont answer because the answer is based on  materialism. A child would explain to you that the material conditions did not exist.That damn Engelist 'material' preventing human minds from creating and inventing  

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Youse are crude materialists, even you said so yourself, when asked about what the constituents of 'means of production' actually were. You said 'material' things, and not ideas.

How could we possibly believe such an absurd proposition.  Only an idealist would leave the human mind out of material contitions.  

[SocialistPunk]

LBird wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

Why some people fail to heed the law of holes is beyond me.

Bruce Lee wrote:

Mistakes are always forgivable, if one has the courage to admit them.

 

I'm waiting for you to do so, SP.

We are all waiting for you to answer questions put to you. All you keep saying is "I'm a Marxist your Engelist materialists, "theory and practice"."You haven't yet explained in simple language what you mean. You just keep dishing out vague statements. The people you were discussing the same stuff with on the ICC website couldn't get what you were on about either. One of them even suggested you lay out your theory in an essay, but you didn't.http://en.internationalism.org/forum/1056/link/13470/what-lbirdismSeems everyone else is wrong.I've got a suggestion that could suit us all. Lay out your theory in a post. Take your time, it can be as long as needed. That should help us to get to grips with what your theory is. Then perhaps some informed, positive discussion could take place.If you choose not to do this, we can only draw one conclusion, that you are a troll. In which case I would suggest everyone ends all discussion with you.What do you say?What does everyone else think?

[DJP]

SocialistPunk wrote:

What does everyone else think?

To be honest I don't know why anyone is still wasting there time with this self-obsessed charlatan. That's what I think.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

That should help us to get to grips with what your theory is.

But you haven't yet 'got to grips with' what your own 'theory is', so how can you presume to understand mine?I say quite openly that my 'theory' is the same as Marx's: Democratic Communism.You pretend that you haven't got a 'theory', which is itself a product of bourgeois ideology.That you, as an individual, can 'know matter', because 'matter' is 'tangible' and you can 'feel' it.Once 'matter' is seen to be an invention of a society with 'private property', all this 'individualist, biological' nonsense goes out the window, and we're compelled to socially address 'what we know' (and not 'what I know'). And 'social knowledge' implies democracy, for us socialists at least, if not for elitists.

SP wrote:

If you choose not to do this, we can only draw one conclusion, that you are a troll. In which case I would suggest everyone ends all discussion with you.What do you say?

If you say that I'm a troll, I'll merely say that you're an uneducated wanker, in thrall to Religious Materialism and its god 'Matter', and a critical thought has never passed between your ears.So, let's not sling insults, either way, eh, comrade?

SP wrote:

What does everyone else think?

It'd be nice for once for 'everyone else' to actually 'think' – just for a change.There's a simple solution for 'everyone' – either all resolve to learn, or most ignore me, and leave only those who wish to read, discuss and think (or, I suppose, you could ban me permanently, but that wouldn't look good for the SPGB, would it?).

[SocialistPunk]

I have a very strong tendency to agree with you DJP. Bu tas socialists we do advocate a voice for the minority view. So in that spirit I simply suggest LBird takes the offer to once and for all coherently lay out his theory in one go.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

What does everyone else think?

To be honest I don't know why anyone is still wasting there time with this self-obsessed charlatan. That's what I think.

Christ, you're digging up the dead, now!

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

I say quite openly that my 'theory' is the same as Marx's: Democratic Communism.

And I say quite openly that my theory is the same as marx's Clearly your theory is idealist nonsense as has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt on these threads. Take the majority vote

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I have a very strong tendency to agree with you DJP. Bu tas socialists we do advocate a voice for the minority view. So in that spirit I simply suggest LBird takes the offer to once and for all coherently lay out his theory in one go.

But 'my theory' is 'Democratic Communism'.So, when asked 'who elects matter', I say 'we all do'.It's those with something to hide who won't agree with this, and they pretend not to have a 'theory'.Mine is also consistent with Einstein's view that 'the theory determines what we observe', which is a later formulation of Marx's 'theory and practice'.So, I've been entirely open.How about the rest of you?

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

What does everyone else think?

To be honest I don't know why anyone is still wasting there time with this self-obsessed charlatan. That's what I think.

Christ, you're digging up the dead, now!

What because he couldn't be bothered to argue with a self obsessed charlatan?

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

 But 'my theory' is 'Democratic Communism'. 

But MY theory is communist.( Do not know why you keep using the 'democratic' Is there a communism that is not democratic?) And your theory is pure idealist rubbish

[ALB]

Quote:

ALB, you must be able to tell the difference between an educated critic with whom you disagree (at the present), and a dishonest liar.

Normally I can but I've my doubts in this case since what else can I conclude when someone repeats in almost every post that we subscribe to the view expressed by Lenin in his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism that the mind essentially reflects the outside world ("matter") and calls us "Leninists" (which they know will infuriate us in view of our consistent opposition to Leninism since the beginning) whereas we have repeatedly said that we share with the same sort of criticism Pannekoek made of this "mechanical" or "bourgeois" materialism in his Lenin As Philosopher.  SP suggests that this is the action of a troll. Not necessarily, but it would be cruel to spell out the alternative explanation.Basically, for whatever reason, you've cried "Englesist", "Leninist" once too much. Enough is enough.

[SocialistPunk]

Oh well, I see LBird has declined the offer to construct a coherent explanation of his theory for us to digest. Instead preferring the practice of elitist….err…"intellectual" trolling.In my experience if a person can't explain in simple, coherent terms what they want to convey, it usually means they don't know what they're on about.I'm out, and I strongly suggest everyone else avoids temptation to counter attack. It's what LBird wants.

[ALB]

I'm out too. In fact I should have kept to my previous decision to do this.

[Author]

Posts