The Long Awaited Materialism thread

[twc]

Nobody writes in an official capacity for the Party, only the Party itself.

Now answer my #119.

[LBird]

Thanks for both contradictory answers, twc.

[twc]

Yes, I am arguing the World Socialist case, of which movement the SPGB is a partner, actually the foundation member, and numerically the strongest member.I argue here, at all times, for the world socialist Object and the world socialist Declaration of Principles.I accept Marx's materialist conception of history, and his base–superstructure determinism, which many members don't.I understand that lack of scientific training of most members is reason enough for their distrust of and caution toward the materialist conception of history and base–superstructure determinism.I am, of course, fully cognizant that nearly everyone else, perhaps worldwide almost without exception, just like yourself, pours scorn on the materialist conception of history and base–superstructure determinism.Yet Marx thought these were the essence of his science, and they derive from his inversion of Hegel, another figure universally scorned.  Marx without them is not Marx, but somebody else.I hold that our Object and Declaration of Principles, which derive almost directly from Marx's materialist conception of history and base–superstructure determinism, as expressed directly by him for the French Party program he drafted [see ALB on this], through William Morris and the early SDF, only make scientific sense as scientific consequences of Marx's materialist conception of history and his base–superstructure determinism.In other words, I hold that the SPGB's conception of socialism is scientific, and the only possible scientific conception.I also hold that if socialism, as a social mode of production, is not scientific, it has no chance at all.  It is entirely Utopia.That's what the two founding fathers agreed. That was their legacy to mankind. That's what they gave us to build our new social mode of production upon — world socialism, built by comprehending and committed world socialists.We have to thank the social democrats and Leninists for the dominance of contrary views.The most influential, the Leninists, defied Marx's science, and in their defiance were turned materialistically by his science into converting their ancient feudal societies into socially-necessary engines of primitive capitalist accumulation, with which "Capital comes into the world dripping with blood", just as Marx's materialist science proves it must. Syncretists, like yourself, who accept immediacy as essence, thereby proclaim that Marx's science — the materialist conception of history and base–superstructure determinism — are discredited, false, absurd.You know the rest.  I consider your own stupid opposition to science to be ignorant, ludicrous, and contemptible.  Just try and comprehend a little of it, say like geology, looking at a side cutting, or a sea shore, and if you think that the comprehension of nature is despicable, and that nature doesn't challenge you all the way, I feel sorry for you.

[twc]

Now, have a go at my #119.

[twc]

Not contradictory.  No-one argues on this open forum in any official SPGB capacity at all.That doesn't prevent them from arguing the SPGB case for socialism.It's not contradictory to observe that many members accept the SPGB Object and Declaration of Principles in their own powerful compelling right, without necessarily reading them as consequences of the materialist conception of history and base–superstructure determinism.  Why should they?Agreement with the SPGB Object and Declaration of Principles is all that matters for world socialist membership, no matter how each of us arrives at it. 

[twc]

Now, have a go at my #119

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Not contradictory. No-one argues on this open forum in any official SPGB capacity at all.That doesn't prevent them from arguing the SPGB case for socialism.

This is "dialectical thought", presumably?

[twc]

You seem to argue here in the official capacity of a troll.Now, have a go at my #119.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

You seem to argue here in the official capacity of a troll.

At least you seem to acknowledge that my activities fall under the label of 'argument'.I'm afraid, though, that I can't return the compliment.

[twc]

Argue against #119.

[DJP]

It seems that this thread has lost it's usefulness. If anyone wants to see the SPGB take on 'historical materialism' see our pamphlethttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/historical-materialismPerhaps start from 'some misconceptions'And this study guide:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/materialist-conception-historyIt would seem that 'base-superstructure determinism' is far to crude a model to be of any real use. For the reasons outlined by Engels (and others since) in the letter mentioned here and previously in this thread…

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Argue against #119.

Peremptory, eh? It's all falling into place, now!Materialism and its 'determinism' – a master for the proletariat that must be obeyed!No wonder there's no room for human creativity and proletarian democratic control of production, in your world, twc!Luckily, we've got the likes of you to translate for us what the 'rocks' are demanding of us, eh?

[twc]

But it was a thoroughly useful thread when you and LBird were trying to find the exact point in space where the mind is located, and purchasing books to find out exactly where and report back for our benefit.Come on, you were talking drivel when trying to locate the exact point in space that social consciousness occupies. The pinpoint on which your angels danced.To Marx, the consciousness of the capitalist class resides in its social superstructure — in capitalist society's laws, its institutions, its arts, sciences — just as Marx describes the social superstructure of the capitalist mode of production.Now that we all know where the consciousness of capitalist society, when considered as an single entity, resides — where else could it be located — will LBird demand his money back from Amazon.You construe the social superstructure as far too crude a category for serious consideration. Presumably, for you, Marx didn't mean what he said in his scientific manifesto that A determines B, that [as in all deterministic science] base determines superstructure, that social being determines thought.That is precisely what the Party's case is based on, and what it can never relinquish, and what this forum is an appropriate place to thrash out.

[twc]

I have argued against the syncretistic view that A determines B, and B determines A, as being entirely void of abstract thought content [being merely descriptive of concrete experience content] unless both A and B are determined by something else.Neither Marx nor Engels thought that Being and Consciousness were, when treating society as a single entity, determined in a more fundamental something else.  Neither have most thinkers who tackle the problem of thinking and being.Both Marx and Engels took a consistent stance on the issue of Being and Consciousness, and scorned inconsistent syncretism.  I would therefore exercise due caution before dismissing out of hand their considered view which gave to the Party its very existence as a consistent socialist party.Are you really arguing that sometimes capital controls society, but sometimes society controls capital.  If so, the capitalist class would rejoice.That's how things appear to be, but you ask even the politicians who try to control capital, and they know that they don't, never can, that they must administer to its ever-changing needs, that they are driven by it, controlled by it;  their thoughts, their will, their actions those of mere marionettes at the whim of controlling capital.  It makes them act and think against their better nature, and smooth the road for capital to ride roughshod over society.The whole point of science is to explain the immediately apparent by mediated thought.  That's where consistent thought comes in.The most significant thought I can make here is that abstraction from experience discloses determinism independent of us.  Determinism, independent of us, always takes the base–superstructure form of A determines B, to explain why concrete phenomena appear to contradict that law.You dismiss base–superstructure by the contradictory appearance it is intended to explain.  If appearance wasn't contradictory, it simply wouldn't need explaining.

[DJP]

Hardy wrote:

The summary of the Materialist Conception of History in the Preface to the Critique of Political Economy, is a compressed statement which should be read together with further explanations in Marx and Engels’ writings. I would like to deal with what is meant by “the relations of production”. The reference from the Preface to the Critique is as follows: “In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces”. Engels was asked a question in 1894 about the “relations of production”, and he answered it on 25th January, 1894 by listing what constituted “the relations of production”. First, the entire technique of production and transport. Second, the geographical basis in which they operate. Third, the survivals of earlier stages of economic development. Fourth, the external environment which surrounds this form of society.In other words, Engels was saying that economic relations must not be interpreted narrowly, that they go into a whole field, that they take in not merely the technique of production, but a number of other things as well. In the same letter, Engels emphasised the point that whilst it is the economic conditions which ultimately condition historical development, it should not be overlooked that all the derivative factors, political, juridical, philosophical, religious and artistic, not only interact with each other but also “react upon the economic basis”. Engels is saying that it should be recognised that there is an economic basis and that it produces a superstructure corresponding to it, but these various aspects of the superstructure interact with each other, and all of them react on the economic basis itself, so things are not simply in a watertight compartment like economic basis and the rest, nor should it be thought that the rest is simply the result of the economic basis.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/materialist-conception-history

[Author]

Posts