The Long Awaited Materialism thread

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

God is real.I think a 'materialist' will disagree with that statement, but a 'realist' will agree with it.

LOL I don't think realism entails one to have to say that! One can say that the concept 'god' is a real thing that exists as a concept in the minds of people (and so affects how they behave) but at the same time say that thing that the concept refers to does not exist in the real world.Surely you have to separate the concepts from the entities / non-entities they refer to. Otherwise you will have to say that anything that can be concieved is real. I don't think anyone would use 'real' in this sense.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

If 'value' is in the 'grey matter' of individuals, 'all in the head', why doesn't everybody in capitalist society know about 'value' just by thinking about what's in their heads?

I don't think anyone has claimed that value is 'all in the head'…

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

God is real.I think a 'materialist' will disagree with that statement, but a 'realist' will agree with it.

LOL I don't think realism entails one to have to say that! One can say that the concept 'god' is a real thing that exists as a concept in the minds of people (and so effects how they behave) but at the same time say that thing that the concept refers to does not exist in the real world.Surely you have to seperate the concepts from the entities / non-entities they refer to. Otherwise you will have to say that anything that can be concieved is real. I don't think anyone would use 'real' in this sense.

Well, perhaps I've succeeded (at last!) in pointing out to you the difference between a 'realist' and a 'physicalist' view of nature.It's your choice, comrade, which ideology you want to employ to help you to understand the world (physical and social).Leaving aside the substantive issue of 'value', etc. and how we understand it, I'm just glad that I've been able to finally explain something!

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

If 'value' is in the 'grey matter' of individuals, 'all in the head', why doesn't everybody in capitalist society know about 'value' just by thinking about what's in their heads?

I don't think anyone has claimed that value is 'all in the head'…

Didn't you read the quote I gave with this question? From Vin?

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

Well, perhaps I've succeeded (at last!) in pointing out to you the difference between a 'realist' and a 'physicalist' view of nature.It's your choice, comrade, which ideology you want to employ to help you to understand the world (physical and social).Leaving aside the substantive issue of 'value', etc. and how we understand it, I'm just glad that I've been able to finally explain something!

I think it's more like we now understand your terminology.  You say Critical Realism, I say Cultural Materialism, after the deaths of millions of electrons, we now agree that what we've been calling materialism is what you call critical realism….Now, potato, or potato?

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Well, perhaps I've succeeded (at last!) in pointing out to you the difference between a 'realist' and a 'physicalist' view of nature.

The only trouble here is that physicalism and materialism are realist positions, but not the only ones.You're jumbling up definitions..

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Well, perhaps I've succeeded (at last!) in pointing out to you the difference between a 'realist' and a 'physicalist' view of nature.It's your choice, comrade, which ideology you want to employ to help you to understand the world (physical and social).Leaving aside the substantive issue of 'value', etc. and how we understand it, I'm just glad that I've been able to finally explain something!

I think it's more like we now understand your terminology.  You say Critical Realism, I say Cultural Materialism, after the deaths of millions of electrons, we now agree that what we've been calling materialism is what you call critical realism….Now, potato, or potato?

So, you agree, YMS, that 'value' contains no matter, is not in the 'grey matter' of individuals (not even in one synapse of one head, never mind in all 7 billion), and is a real mechanism (but not physical) that causes our problems?If you do, I'm not yet sure that others, for example, Vin or DJP, agree.And to call this perspective 'materialism' is a misnomer, because, well… much of it has as much to do with 'idealism' as with 'materialism'. That opposition was resurrected by Engels, after Marx thought he'd put it to bed.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

So, you agree, YMS, that 'value' contains no matter, is not in the 'grey matter' of individuals (not even in one synapse of one head, never mind in all 7 billion), and is a real mechanism (but not physical) that causes our problems?

Are you talking about 'value' the concept or 'value' the social relation?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, you agree, YMS, that 'value' contains no matter, is not in the 'grey matter' of individuals (not even in one synapse of one head, never mind in all 7 billion), and is a real mechanism (but not physical) that causes our problems?

Are you talking about 'value' the concept or 'value' the social relation?

The social relation existed before the concept was dreamt up. I'm talking about the causal mechanism that destroys the lives of humans.Value existed before Marx identified it. Value is nothing to do with 'grey matter'. Capitalism ruined humans prior to 1867.

[Young Master Smeet]

With regard to value, what I think is that only through a general character does the value-form correspond to the concept of value. The value-form had to be a form in which commodities appear for one another as a mere jelly of undifferentiated, homogenous human labour, i.e. as expressions in the form of things of the same labour-substance. For they are all material expressions of the same labour, of the labour contained in the linen or as the same material expression of labour, namely as linen. Thus they are qualitatively equated.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

The social relation existed before the concept was dreamt up. I'm talking about the causal mechanism that destroys the lives of humans.Value existed before Marx identified it. Value is nothing to do with 'grey matter'. Capitalism ruined humans prior to 1867.

Well yes, value is a concept that describes how certain kinds of society function. But then to claim how a society functions has 'nothing to do' with what goes on in peoples brains seems a little strange. Unless you're going to try and say that thinking has nothing to do with brains.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

With regard to value, what I think is that only through a general character does the value-form correspond to the concept of value. The value-form had to be a form in which commodities appear for one another as a mere jelly of undifferentiated, homogenous human labour, i.e. as expressions in the form of things of the same labour-substance. For they are all material expressions of the same labour, of the labour contained in the linen or as the same material expression of labour, namely as linen. Thus they are qualitatively equated.

This hardly answers my question, YMS. Which was:

LBird wrote:

So, you agree, YMS, that 'value' contains no matter, is not in the 'grey matter' of individuals (not even in one synapse of one head, never mind in all 7 billion), and is a real mechanism (but not physical) that causes our problems.

You still seem to be clinging to a 'materialist/physicalist' viewpoint. That's OK if you are, but I just can't understand why you don't say so.For Marx, there is no 'matter' in 'value'. I agree with Marx. It is not a 'material expression'.I'm beginning to have the sinking feeling that my words are not having any affect after all, notwithstanding what I wrote earlier.Why can't comrades see that there are alternative ideologies being used to understand 'value', and discuss their differences, rather than pretend it's all the same mish-mash of 'materialism/physicalism/realism'.

[Anonymous]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

With regard to value, what I think is that only through a general character does the value-form correspond to the concept of value. The value-form had to be a form in which commodities appear for one another as a mere jelly of undifferentiated, homogenous human labour, i.e. as expressions in the form of things of the same labour-substance. For they are all material expressions of the same labour, of the labour contained in the linen or as the same material expression of labour, namely as linen. Thus they are qualitatively equated.

Well said! But for clarity you cannot find better than Stanley Unwinhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR8oheIyemE&list=PL7336A96E0EDAE78C orhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2tzUFw_onY 

[Young Master Smeet]

Lbird,what I wrote was a (slightly edited for context) quote from Marx.  "Substance" and "Material" (Materiatur)are his words.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/appendix.htm

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Lbird,what I wrote was a (slightly edited for context) quote from Marx.  "Substance" and "Material" (Materiatur)are his words.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/appendix.htm

Yes, but I wasn't asking for a Marx quote. I can read him just as well as you.I was asking you which ideology you use to understand 'value'.That is, what you think.If it's 'materialism' (or one of its synonyms) that OK by me.Then we can progress the thread, because I'm not a 'materialist' (or one of its synonyms).Do you ever have the feeling you're going round in circles?

[Author]

Posts